Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ACCOMMOMDATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 8 June.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 8 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Peace Process

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the peace process. [24620]

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has had about the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [24630]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Since I last answered questions in the House, there has been one further meeting of exploratory dialogue with the loyalist parties and there have been two with Sinn Fein. On each of those occasions, I have led the Government team. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State also had an informal meeting with Mr. Adams of Sinn Fein in Washington yesterday. On each of those occasions, we emphasised our commitment to the peace process and the key importance to that process of a substantial decommissioning of illegally held weapons together with progress on a range of other issues.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Minister agree that the White House conference on investment in Northern Ireland is a very good idea and that, indeed, the White House should be congratulated on holding that conference, which the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) are attending? Was not the meeting yesterday between the Secretary of State and the president of Sinn Fein inevitable at some stage, now that terrorism has,

fortunately, ended in Northern Ireland? Will not such talks be on an on-going basis, bearing in mind the qualification made by the Minister?

Mr. Ancram: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the White House has acted very constructively in holding a conference, which follows the investment conference held by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Belfast in December. It is being held to try to bring jobs and investment to Northern Ireland, which is indeed a very important purpose. It is quite clear also that that purpose will best be achieved by the establishment of a permanent peace. In the context of the conference in Washington, it was proper that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met Mr. Adams to make clear the relationship between peace, economic investment and jobs and to make it clear that the only way in which peace can be founded soundly is by seeing the decommissioning of illegally held arms taking place.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to ensure that in their objective of appeasing or seeking the acquiescence of the minority of the minority community, they do not alienate the law-abiding majority on whose support the long-term political future of democratic institutions and stability in the Province depend?

Mr. Ancram: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am not in the business either of alienating or of appeasing. I am seeking to build on a situation in which there is a cessation of violence to try to ensure, through exploratory dialogue, that we can see the beginning of a genuine decommissioning of illegally held arms. There is not a Member of the House who would not agree that, at the end of day, peace must be established on the basis of illegally held arms being taken out of the Northern Ireland equation. We have made it quite clear to those to whom we are speaking in Sinn Fein and the loyalist parties that if they wish to proceed to substantive political dialogue in Northern Ireland, substantial decommissioning of arms would have to take place.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister concerned with the changing stance of Dick Spring from that in December 1993 and June 1994, when he talked not only about a cessation of violence but about a handing over of weapons, along with the statement of Albert Reynolds, who is calling for the decommissioning of legally held firearms by servants of the state? Why did the Minister suggest pulling out of talks with representatives of a loyalist paramilitary faction because they were threatening to shoot drug dealers, while continuing to talk with representatives of those who had shot a drug dealer just two weeks ago?

Mr. Ancram: I have made it clear all along that the basis of exploratory dialogue is that it is carried out with parties that do not condone or support the use of violence. When there has been any such suggestion, I have challenged the parties about it. Indeed, earlier this week, when there were suggestions that intimidatory action might be being taken in one quarter, I made it clear that I would not speak to parties that in any way appeared to condone it. Certainly, one of the parties and, I suspect, both, have since said that they do not condone such violence. It is right that we make it clear that, in a civilised society, there is no justification for anyone taking the law into his own hands at any time.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is the agreed position of both Governments that, if we are to achieve a settlement and arrive at inclusive talks—including parties such as Sinn Fein—there has to be a substantial decommissioning of weapons. The Taoiseach said in the Dail on 25 April:
It is a very important principle of parity of esteem in democratic dialogue that everybody should approach discussion on the same basis, solely on that of their electoral mandate and not by reference to any implied pressure they can exert because of the existence of arms in the hands of associated organisations. In order to achieve parity of esteem and position those arms must be taken out of commission.
I do not believe that the Irish Government could have made their position clearer than that.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there has been a welcome abatement of terrorism, it is ridiculous for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to talk about an end to terrorism, because the IRA clearly still has a massive arsenal and could easily redeploy it in a matter of hours? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is essential that, before the IRA is admitted to round table talks, the decommissioning process should be well under way?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that any steps taken since the cessation of violence have been taken as a direct response to the lowering of the security risk in Northern Ireland. None of them is irreversible, and that is an important part of the response that has been made.
As for the talks, we have made it clear that to move from exploratory dialogue to substantive bilateral dialogue will require a tangible beginning to the process of decommissioning and that to move to inclusive talks around the table will require substantial decommissioning. The reason is not one of doctrine but the fact that others will not sit around the table with a party that still has associations with a fully armed and operational organisation of the sort that the IRA is.

Mr. Worthington: May I present the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who is attending the investment conference in Washington?
Of course, we completely concur with the Government on the importance of decommissioning of arms, but what other matters have been discussed in the talks between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of Sinn Fein and in the Minister's talks with other members of Sinn Fein? Can the Minister update us on those talks? For example, have any assurances been given by Sinn Fein that it is using all its influence to eliminate punishment beatings or to take other steps to improve the quality of the peace being developed in Northern Ireland?
The Minister will have noticed the optimistic annual report of the Chief Constable of the RUC who expresses the belief that both sides of the paramilitary are set to go down a "peaceful road" but that, at the same time, the
military machines are up, they are cohesive. If they decide … to go again they could do so".
What promises have been given that those machines will be stood down?

Mr. Ancram: At the moment, we are in an exploratory dialogue, the purpose of which is to explore such questions. The two sessions that I have had with Sinn Fein have concentrated largely not only on how

decommissioning might take place but on the reason for it and why it is an essential part of the peace process. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those talks are not on a single-issue agenda; other topics can be, and have been, raised. I have told Sinn Fein and the loyalists that there are other topics that I believe they will wish to raise with me, and exploratory dialogue will continue in the future.
On punishment beatings, on a number of occasions I have made it clear that the Government are not prepared to accept any form of taking the law into one's own hands. We have explained to Sinn Fein that participation in normal political life implies responsibilities as well as rights, and that a party that is fully committed to constitutional means and objectives does not intimidate and threaten the population, does not encourage people to take the law into their own hands and does not condone breaking people's bones with iron bars. We shall continue to make that clear at every possible opportunity.

Economy

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans for expanding the economy of Northern Ireland during the next 12 months. [24621]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Government's role is to provide the right conditions and the right support for the private sector to create economic growth. In Northern Ireland, we are helping companies to become more competitive, building up management and work force skills, supporting innovation, developing an enterprise culture and encouraging inward investment and tourism.

Mr. Mackinlay: How very interesting. Why is the Minister not prepared to proclaim these plans for inward investment and enterprise culture on behalf of the Conservative candidate in the North Down by-election? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which Minister from the Northern Ireland team is going to support the Conservative candidate in that by-election on those and other policies? Is it not a fact that Conservative candidates now choose what party policies they support à la carte and Tory Ministers now choose which Conservative candidates to support à la carte?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman finds the Government's economic achievements in Northern Ireland interesting. They are, indeed, interesting. Northern Ireland's economy has outpaced the rest of the United Kingdom during the past five years, and the Department of Economic Development envisages even greater achievements in ensuing years. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to refer to some remarks in a gossip column in a newspaper. I have not been consulted about that gossip column. I certainly have no comment to make on it, and I have no comment to make now, either.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What decisions have been made so far about the European Union special fund, and to what projects will that money go? What percentage of the money will be allocated to each programme? Will the money that is allocated internally to Northern Ireland be spent in Northern Ireland on projects decided by the people of Northern Ireland, or will Dublin's voice be


heeded? Will Dublin have a say in how that money is spent, although it has its own percentage of money for its own internal affairs?

Sir John Wheeler: I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman the precise information that he seeks because not all the matters have yet been decided. It will be welcome if there is additional funding available for the people of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole, and in particular the cross-border areas which have important commercial interactions with the Northern Ireland economy. In due course, my Department will make known the precise details of the funding arrangements, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that that part of the funding which relates to Northern Ireland will be decided by the proper authorities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Since the MacBride principles involve positive discrimination and are also contrary to fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland, and since the Government have always campaigned against the MacBride principles, can the Minister assure the people of Northern Ireland that the Government and their agencies, such as the Industrial Development Board, will give no grants whatsoever to any American firm that operates the MacBride principles against the existing legislation in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman couches his question in such a way. Even as we discuss these matters this afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend is at work in Washington at the investment conference, putting forward the case for investment in Northern Ireland and emphasising the fairness of our employment practices and the opportunities for employing a well-educated and proficient work force in Northern Ireland. We shall adhere to our previously published policies and objectives about the MacBride principles. I am sure that my noble Friend will take into account his own strictures on the matter.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the peace process should encourage substantial inward investment in Northern Ireland, we could handicap that if we adopted restrictions on industry, such as a national minimum wage or the social chapter, as suggested by the Labour party?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that such practices would greatly discourage investment in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland in particular and would lose us jobs, which the people of Northern Ireland seek. He is right once again to draw the attention of the House to such a disastrous policy.

Teaching

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance he gives teachers on methods of teaching; and if he will make a statement. [24622]

Mr. Ancram: It is the responsibility of the education and library boards to provide the necessary support for

schools and in-service training for teachers to enable them to delivery the school curriculum. The Government give no direct guidance.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pressure over the years from socialist education idealogues for mixed ability teaching and of its damaging results? I certainly never practised it here and would not do so anywhere else. Will he advise teachers in Northern Ireland and everywhere else that such teaching methods would be disastrous and that sound learning comes only from sound discipline, which must be achieved?

Mr. Ancram: I hear what my hon. Friend says and have some sympathy with his comments. I do not have his professional background, so I would not presume to comment in a more professional way. We give no direct guidance to teachers as such.
The Northern Ireland education system, which is particular and unique to Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend knows, produces very good results. School pupils in Northern Ireland continue to perform better than their English counterparts. In 1992–93, 85 per cent. of A-level pupils in Northern Ireland achieved two or more A-levels compared to 74 per cent. in England, while the proportion of year 12 pupils with no GCSEs was 6 per cent. compared to 7 per cent. in England; so we can take some satisfaction from the fact that the Northern Ireland education system is working, and working well.

Ms Hoey: As a product of the Northern Ireland education system, I have to agree. On teaching methods in integrated schools, which are obviously excellent, can the Minister give the House any news on further progress in making the special unit on Rathlin island an integrated school?

Mr. Ancram: I can only repeat what I have told the hon. Lady on another occasion. Any proposal for integrated education is considered by my Department according to strict criteria, to ensure that such schools have a chance of being viable and of succeeding. The criteria are carefully laid out and proposals are made to me. When the criteria are met, unless there are specific reasons, we normally support the proposals. When they are not met, I have had, on occasion, to turn them down.

Inward Investment

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of inward investment has been attracted to Northern Ireland for the latest year for which figures are available. [24623]

Mr. Ancram: During 1994–95, the Industrial Development Board secured 10 inward investment projects, with an employment potential of nearly 2,000 jobs and planned investments of £130 million.

Mr. Evans: I welcome the Washington conference on investment in Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have some particularly good news—between April and August last year 39 potential investors visited Northern Ireland, whereas 96 such investors visited Northern Ireland between September and January this year? Will my hon. Friend confirm that those figures would be further enhanced if we could get the


decommissioning of arms by the IRA, and that the message to Sinn Fein, the IRA and the people of Northern Ireland is simple—it is a case of guns out and jobs in?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the message that came through very clearly from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last night in Washington. It is a point that we must continue to make because, although the figures to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded are very encouraging, there is no doubt that investment and prosperity in Northern Ireland will depend not only on a cessation of violence but on the confidence that peace will last and, indeed, on the political settlement which I hope will create political stability following on that.
I totally support what my hon. Friend said, but the figures are now rather better than those that he gave. There were 163 visits by potential investors in 1994–95 compared with 146 in the preceding year. Investment inquiries, which are a very good indicator, were up as well, at 743 in the six months to 31 March 1995 compared to only 189 in the corresponding period in the previous year. These are, indeed, encouraging signs.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be aware of my strong support for overseas firms coming into my constituency, although I am very concerned at the extra financial burden placed on those firms by the fair employment legislation. Would the Minister join me to help investigate the unofficial embargo that has been placed by a Government department on a certain product produced in a factory in my constituency?

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Member knows, that is not one of the departments for which I have responsibility in Northern Ireland, although I answer for it in the House. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me giving details, I shall pass them on to my noble Friend Lady Denton and she will reply to him in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman works very hard in his constituency to ensure that inward investment is forthcoming and that, in the past three years, there has been some significant inward investment.

Mr. Worthington: While in the United States, will the Secretary of State see Senator Jesse Helms, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is against all US aid, including aid for the International Fund for Ireland, to persuade him that this would be exactly the wrong moment to withdraw assistance to Ireland? If we can get money for the International Fund for Ireland, will the Secretary of State ensure that a good proportion of it goes into community-based initiatives so that the people of Northern Ireland can get a sense of ownership of the economy in the Province?

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend is in Washington to promote investment into Northern Ireland because that is the purpose of the conference. Certainly, he and my noble Friend Lady Denton and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), will spend their time making sure that that message comes across clearly and strongly to all those at that conference. The purpose of the conference is, however, to attract investment. The reason for attracting private investment is that it can create

jobs, which are, at the end of the day, the best underpinned of prosperity and of the standard and quality of life in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Sykes: Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) seems to be more interested in gossip than in facts? Perhaps he is in a hurry to get back to the Chelsea flower show. Will my hon. Friend explain to Opposition Members that it is the social chapter, the minimum wage and state control that affect inward investment and that the reason why British firms have been so successful in attracting inward investment is exactly the absence of those things?

Mr. Ancram: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Government have taken a firm view on the social chapter. However, in Northern Ireland there has been, as my hon. Friend knows, a particular disadvantage, and that has been the troubled situation that has existed for 25 years. We are now trying to establish peace not only in the short term but in the long term because that will bring even more badly needed jobs to Northern Ireland. As for gossip and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), one of the occupations of the House in the 20 years in which I have been here, on and off, has always been to indulge, in certain respects, in gossip.

Peace Process

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in taking the peace process forward in his talks with representatives of Sinn Fein. [24624]

Mr. Ancram: I met representatives of Sinn Fein at meetings in exploratory dialogue on 10 May and yesterday. At the first meeting, we explored the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and we agreed to discuss it at a future meeting on the basis of a detailed paper tabled by the Government at that time.
Yesterday, we explored in depth the relevance of decommissioning to the peace process and our differences of approach to this. My right hon. and learned Friend held an informal meeting with Mr. Adams of Sinn Fein in Washington last night when the relevance of peace to economic prospects in Northern Ireland was underlined.

Mr. Prentice: Now that the Minister has met representatives of Sinn Fein, does he believe that Gerry Adams and the Sinn Fein leadership have the authority and the influence to insist that all IRA brigades decommission their arms and explosives? If not, does he believe that the Government are pressing Sinn Fein to do something on which it cannot necessarily deliver?

Mr. Ancram: Sinn Fein has agreed that it was its influence that created the situation that led to the cessation of violence on 31 August last year. I understand, in talking to Sinn Fein, that it has admitted that it has an influence over the question of decommissioning as well. What I am doing—it is absolutely clear—is making it abundantly clear to Sinn Fein that, if it wishes to move from exploratory dialogue to substantive dialogue, not just words but actions in terms of decommissioning will be required. I know that Sinn Fein has taken careful note of what I have said and I am sure that we shall return to the matter again at future meetings.

Mr. Molyneaux: Given that the IRA has halted only one aspect of terrorism, that it has actually increased other


criminal activities, including murder, recently and that it has continued the very worrying feature of targeting police families and public figures, do Ministers not now realise that they have the backing of the entire community for demanding that the IRA ends its terrorism and that it sets about deactivating its hideous terrorist apparatus for good?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he says because it is important that we realise what our objectives are. Our objectives are to take violence, intimidation and terrorism out of the situation in Northern Ireland. What we are doing is making it clear to those who say to us that they wish to become part of the political process that it is no part of a democratic party to condone the use of violence for political purposes. It is no part of a democratic party to condone the use of violence for intimidatory purposes and it is no part of a democratic party to have associations with fully armed and potentially terrorist organisations. We have made it clear that, if this process is to move forward with the participation of Sinn Fein and, indeed, of the loyalist paramilitary representatives, we have to see those problems resolved.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be widespread support throughout the House both for what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said and for what he said in reply? Will he confirm that, for years, the House has expected elected councillors from constitutional parties to sit in the same chamber as Sinn Fein and that the key point that needs to be made to Sinn Fein is that, whereas talking with Ministers is not frightfully complicated, the most important issue is creating the conditions in which other parties are willing to sit down with Sinn Fein to discuss the future of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the basis for exploratory dialogue was threefold from the start. One part of it was the consequences of the cessation of violence, which included aspects such as the decommissioning of arms. Another was the bringing of Sinn Fein back into the full democratic process within Northern Ireland, in terms not just of electing councillors but of the work that those councillors do. The third was finding the basis for Sinn Fein to become involved in the political discussions and the constitutional discussions on the future of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to say that if Sinn Fein wishes to achieve that status, it must do so on the basis that all other parties do, which is that they are armed with their electoral mandates and with nothing else.

Tourism, Banbridge

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to facilitate tourism in the Banbridge district. [24626]

Sir John Wheeler: The Northern Ireland tourist board is taking action in conjunction with the local industry on a number of fronts, particularly marketing, quality and accommodation, to facilitate the development of tourism across all parts of Northern Ireland, including Banbridge.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister accept that the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in rural areas, by conversion or new build, is a desirable objective

but that it is being frustrated by an over-rigid approach by planning authorities? Does he accept that the people of Banbridge would be delighted if there were major hotel development in the town but that they will be extremely angry with the Government if it turns out that the true reason for the mooted closure of Banbridge hospital is to sell it off for such development?

Sir John Wheeler: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an informed and dedicated interest in the commercial interests of his constituents, not least in the promotion and development of tourism. The provision of quality accommodation has been identified by the Northern Ireland tourist board as an important development for Northern Ireland and the board may be able to provide some form of assistance. I have no knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman suggests in respect of the national health service but if my hon. Friend who is responsible for health knows about that point I am sure that he will communicate with the hon. Gentleman. Planning permission for bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a matter for the divisional planning officer, but I should hope that such decisions would be based on the economic needs as well as the environmental interests of the locality.

Terrorist Prisoners

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners in Northern Ireland gaols are classified as members of (a) nationalist terrorist organisations and in each case which one and (b) loyalist terrorist organizations and in each case which one. [24627]

Sir John Wheeler: The terrorist affiliation of prisoners is recorded for prison management purposes, not for classification. Approximately 35 per cent. of sentenced prisoners are republican, 23 per cent. are loyalist, and 42 per cent. are not affiliated or are untraced.

Mr. O'Brien: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the report by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders concerning the early release of prisoners? Will it form a topic for discussion during his talks with Northern Irish parties?

Sir John Wheeler: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reference to the report and work of NIACRO, which I regard extremely highly. I have regular opportunities to meet representatives of NIACRO and I listen to their points of view and objectives carefully. It is a forward-thinking, highly responsible organization on which I place much credit. Its observations weigh in my mind when I consider those important and complicated matters and in the course of discussion with others, too.

Mr. Brazier: When are the cases of prisoners Fisher and Wright likely to be reviewed, and when is next month's review of the sentence of Private Lee Clegg likely to be completed?

Sir John Wheeler: I cannot comment on the cases of the two offenders to whom my hon. Friend referred, other than to say that they are part of the normal process and procedure for the Prison Service in Northern Ireland and will be subject to those procedures in precisely the same


way as any other prisoners. The life sentence review board will begin to review Private Lee Clegg's case in June and a report will come to my notice in due course.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: When will the statement of 16 March be implemented to allow financially assisted visits for low-income families of prisoners?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman takes a detailed and considered interest in those matters. The Northern Ireland Prison Service is considering a number of proposals to enhance the regime of prisons in Northern Ireland and that is certainly one of them. The Prison Service must take into account the serious cost implications as it balances the different economic needs of the management of prisons.

Terrorist Disarmament

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress he has made to date in bringing about the disarming of republican terrorist organisations. [24628]

Sir John Wheeler: Substantial progress on decommissioning paramilitary weapons, and on other issues, is needed if Sinn Fein is to enter normal political life in Northern Ireland. We will continue to pursue this matter vigorously during exploratory dialogue. The RUC and Garda will also continue to seek out all illegal terrorist weapons, as recent successes in Northern Ireland and the Republic amply demonstrate.

Mr. Winterton: Although I fully support the peace initiative, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are Members who deeply regret the meeting that took place between the Secretary of State and Gerry Adams yesterday in Washington, because it gives credibility to Mr. Adams and his cause, which is totally unjustified? Does he accept that if the Government are to retain the confidence of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, who support the Union, including the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, they must make no further concessions to republican terrorism and we must have a substantial decommissioning of IRA weapons?

Sir John Wheeler: I fully understand why my hon. Friend views with distaste the encounter between my right hon. and learned Friend and the president of Sinn Fein. Perhaps he will be pleased to know that that encounter enabled my right hon. and learned Friend to make clear to the president of Sinn Fein that if Sinn Fein is to be a normal political party, it must understand the importance of the decommissioning process and it must agree, through the exploratory talks mechanism that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is conducting, with the modalities of decommissioning if it is to make progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) urges that the Government should not concede, to use his word, any further leeway to Sinn Fein. I can assure him that the decommissioning principle, which has been so vigorously announced by the Government, will be adhered to.

Mr. Maginnis: Is it not somewhat peculiar that the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) answered that question instead of the hon. Member for Devizes, who has responsibility, apparently,

for bringing the disarmament process to a conclusion? Has not the hon. Member for Devizes been somewhat coy about his on-going relationship with Sinn Fein-IRA? Is it not a fact that although every demand by Sinn Fein-IRA as to who they will meet and when they will meet them has been met so far, not a single solitary gun has been produced, and nor have we moved to discuss in detail the modalities and methods for disarmament? Is it true that progress on that issue has been made with loyalist paramilitary organisations? Is not the dalliance of the hon. Member for Devizes with Sinn Fein-IRA becoming a sordid little affair?

Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no difference in any way between my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and me on the issue of decommissioning. We stand shoulder to shoulder in our determination to see that process carried forward. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the exploratory talks that my hon. Friend has been holding with various organisations, down but a single track, have shown some to be swifter in their journey than others. The fact remains that, even as we talk of such matters, in Washington my right hon. and learned Friend is urging the decommissioning process, because if investors are to invest in Northern Ireland with confidence, they, like other people, cannot look into the minds of terrorists and their political associates, who speak about permanence of peace, until they look to see the evidence of a standing down of terrorist gangs. When that happens, people will know that decommissioning has indeed been achieved.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: What plans have the Government to involve either other countries or other organisations in the process of removing and destroying arms, ammunition and explosives that may be seized in due course?

Sir John Wheeler: It remains to be seen precisely what procedures are necessary to achieve the successful and actual decommissioning of the substantial amounts of weapons and explosives that are held by the Provisional IRA and others. It is always possible that contributions to the process can be made by other people, although firmly within the control and the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ms Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May. [24650]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Ms Hoey: Has the Prime Minister any understanding of the deep anger that will be felt in the country at the way in which the directors of the privatised National Grid have used tax avoidance measures to ensure that their


wives will have hundreds of thousands of bonus shares? What message does that send to pensioners in my constituency who are struggling to make ends meet?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not be wholly aware of what has happened. I have made inquiries to clarify the position.
I understand that the only share options granted by the National Grid have been granted to its own directors and staff; but, having exercised those options and purchased the shares, directors have then given them to their wives. As the hon. Lady may know, it is a fundamental principle that transfers of property between husband and wife are free of tax, as they have been for a long time.
If the hon. Lady and the deputy leader of the Labour party wish to change the position, are they saying that they want to make transfers of property between husband and wife taxable? Are they saying that the independent taxation of men and women should be abolished? Are they saying that widows should no longer be able to inherit property from their husbands free of tax? [HON MEMBERS: "Answer".] That is the inevitable principle that follows from the point put by the hon. Lady. Once again, Opposition Members are trying to use a particular issue for their own advantage without understanding the implications of what they say.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Prime Minister has heard of the result of yesterday's meeting in America between his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein. I am sure that he has noted what the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein said: that there can be no progress towards decommissioning until there is complete demilitarisation of everyone—that is, the surrender of arms by Army, police and those who have guns to protect themselves—and that all prisoners must be released. Are the Government prepared to negotiate with the leader of Sinn Fein on those terms?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend met the leader of Sinn Fein yesterday to make a point that was very important for both the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others in Northern Ireland: that the best contribution that Sinn Fein could make to the conference and to Northern Ireland's prosperity would be to promote peace, and therefore to secure the decommissioning of the IRA's arms and explosives. That remains the Government's position.
Until, in these exploratory talks, there have been practical movements forward in the decommissioning of arms, it will not be possible for Sinn Fein to move to full-scale political talks either with the Government or, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman's party or any other political party in Northern Ireland. That is the point that we have made repeatedly to Sinn Fein, and it remains our position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our objective is to move towards taking the gun entirely out of the politics of Northern Ireland. In that, I believe that we have the support of all the mainstream political parties in Northern Ireland and all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Blair: To return to National Grid, is the Prime Minister aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They wanted us to answer the point and now they do not want us to raise it. Is the Prime Minister aware that the issue is not independent taxation between men and women, but remuneration being paid by way of share options so as to

avoid income tax? That is what is actually happening in this case. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that that abuse is wrong and is he prepared to put a stop to it?

The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I favour employee share options and I favour executive share options. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does too, because that is a direct quote from his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and I or between the two major parties about the desirability of share options.
In this instance, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) has raised a point that has been the subject of publicity today. Having exercised the share options and purchased shares, a husband passed his own property—the shares—to his wife. The leader of the Labour party seems to be saying that if, having done something of which the leader of the Labour party approves—accepted share options—the husband then does what has been done for many years and passes them to his wife, that should now be taxable. That is quite unlike anything that has happened in the past. If that is Labour's policy, let the Leader of the Opposition please make it clear.

Mr. Blair: No, that is not the policy. The only reason why the directors transfer shares to their spouses is that the remuneration is paid by way of share options in order to avoid income tax. That is why they do it. That is the issue: it is not whether share options are wrong or right, it is whether they are taxed as income or as capital gains. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that, where remuneration is effectively given by way of share options to avoid income tax and only pay capital gains tax, he will put a stop to it?

The Prime Minister: Capital gains are taxed at the marginal rate when the capital gain is realised. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not wish husbands to pass those rights on to their wives. The transfer of property between husbands and wives—be it shares, property or capital—is tax free.
Although the right hon. Gentleman is now wriggling because his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor changed his position mid morning because he realised what he had said and what he had done, the truth is revealed yet again by what the right hon. Gentleman has said: Labour hates privatisation and it hates profit. It cannot stand share ownership. Old Labour lurks there as clearly as it ever did. Labour Members cannot stand the fact that some people receive share options and exercise share options as part of their employment remuneration.

Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister does not realise that the National Grid has admitted that it used share options to avoid paying income tax. Why does not the Prime Minister stop defending the greed of a privileged few and stand up for the vast majority of decent British people?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether he is really in favour of share options. The glaring divide between the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Labour party becomes more apparent day by day. They may sit close together, but clearly they never speak.

Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's announcement of further measures to


target taxpayers' money on making state schools more effective and improving standards? Will he confirm that the Government's objective is to ensure that all parents are entitled to a good-quality, high-standard state education for their children, not only if they happen to live a couple of boroughs away from a convenient grant-maintained school?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point. I believe that the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be widely welcomed up and down the country.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the deadlines in Sarajevo represent a critical moment for the authority of the United Nations and its commanders in Bosnia? Will he ensure that, if our commanders on the ground in Bosnia conclude that decisive action must be taken, they will receive the full and unswerving backing of not only the Government but the United Nations in New York?

The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of the present situation. I am happy to tell him that we have already given that assurance to our commanders on the ground. We made that clear in New York last night and they are aware of our position. The United Nations has also reiterated its full support—by that I mean our commanders will have support for whatever action they may consider necessary in the light of the events of the past day or so.
Let me add to that point in view of the present situation. We very much wish the United Nations protection forces to continue performing their role. They have saved many lives delivering aid and containing the fighting. I believe the reason for maintaining a force on the ground remains as compelling today as it has been in the past, but all the parties need to be aware that if they continue ground fighting and accelerate it, they may render it impossible for the United Nations protection forces satisfactorily to carry out the mandate that they have been given. I hope that point is fully understood. At present, General Smith and the United Nations forces are very much in our thoughts. They most assuredly have our total support.

Official Visits

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Southfleet, Kent. [24651]

The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.

Mr. Dunn: What advice would the Prime Minister give the leadership of the trade union, Unison, which may be about to inflict a vicious national strike on the British people? The last time Unison inflicted a strike on the British people—

Mr. Mackinlay: What has this to do with Kent?

Mr. Dunn: People are concerned about it in Southfleet.
The last time Unison inflicted a national strike on British people, hospitals were closed, schools were shut down, operations were cancelled and the dead were left unburied.

The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of industrial action in the health service would be bound to harm patients. It is difficult to see how it could do

anything else. My hon. Friend has provided a graphic reminder of what happened on a previous occasion. I am perfectly certain that no professional nurse would wish to pursue such action, and I very much hope that that will be the overwhelming view. I hope that the few people involved will set aside the language of trade union confrontation, look at the fair offer that has been made to them by the vast majority of NHS trusts up and down the country, accept it and put the issue behind us.

Engagements

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May. [24652]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: From the Government's overwhelming defeat in the local elections last month, it is clear that the electorate totally rejected their local government policies. In particular, people rejected the Government notion that Labour authorities are high taxing and high spending. Will the Government now abandon plans to cap the expenditure of local authorities this year?

The Prime Minister: I have very great doubts about whether people have abandoned the notion that Labour means high taxes, both nationally and locally. If one looks band for band at local taxation last year, one finds that in band C, for example—I take the figures from memory, but I think that they are right—Labour councils taxed about £160 more than Conservative councils. That point will be understood increasingly as people examine their tax bills.

Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report on Islington's social services? If so, he will have found that the Labour party in Islington put political correctness above the needs of the vulnerable and of the children in its care, and above common sense. Does he agree that, in the same way, the Labour party in general puts women-only shortlists and other forms of positive discrimination and political correctness above the interests of the nation—

Madam Speaker: Order. What other parties do is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have told the House time and time again that Ministers at the Dispatch Box answer for their policies, not for what other people do. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give some answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I hope that the House will remember in future that Ministers are to be questioned about their responsibilities, not about anything else.

The Prime Minister: The substantive part of the question followed on nicely from the question asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) a moment ago. Like everyone in the House—I would hope—I read the reports about what apparently happened in Islington council and found them extremely disturbing. They show what happens when political correctness runs riot. I believe that tolerance, in that environment, becomes excess. It causes untold suffering for those in need of help. This was a sad example of what happens when the Labour party is in power. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central


neglected to mention the activities that went on in Islington, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention.

Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May. [24653]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Quin: Does the Prime Minister recall his prediction at the 1991 Conservative party conference that Labour

would introduce eight new taxes if it took office? How does that claim look now in the light of the 20 new taxes that he and the Government have introduced?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Lady should glance at the list of new taxes to which Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves if they come to government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Opposition Members are right: most of the taxes that they propose are rubbish. Labour is now and always has been the party of high taxation at national and local levels, and while the Opposition continue to commit themselves to more spending on every occasion, they always will be the party of high taxation.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House give us the details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for the first week back after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 6 JUNE—Second Reading of the Crown Agents Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 7 JUNE—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 8 JUNE—Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Wantage relating to disclosure of specified Select Committee papers.
Motions on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and co-operation agreement between the European communities and their member states and the Russian Federation) order and the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and co-operation agreement between the European communities and their member states, and Ukraine) order.
FRIDAY 9 JUNE—Debate on the White Paper entitled "Tackling Drugs Together"—A Strategy for England 1995–98" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 7 June to consider European Community Document 4069/95, relating to Consumer Protection: Unit Pricing.
MONDAY 12 JUNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism provisions) (Continuance) order.
Remaining stages of the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill.
I expect to provide for Opposition time on either Tuesday 13 June or Wednesday 14 June, and to take Government business during the first part of Thursday 15 June. Friday 16 June is a non-sitting Friday.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Will he confirm that he will be tabling a motion today to enable a Select Committee to work to clarify and implement the recommendations of the Nolan committee on the rules and procedures of the House? I hope that the House will welcome that development, as I am sure those outside it will. I hope especially that a welcome will be given to the movement by the Government over the past seven days on the Nolan report, which I believe has been in the public interest and the best interests of this Parliament.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the motion that he tables today will be before the House next week and that the Select Committee will meet as soon as possible? Will that Committee be required to make an interim report by 7 July for debate before the summer recess?
The Leader of the House has not scheduled an Opposition Supply day for the first week after the forthcoming recess, although he has promised us one during the week after that. I ask him to remind us of the

number of Supply days remaining and give us an assurance that the remaining Supply days will be spread evenly throughout the remainder of the Session.
Last week, the Leader of the House promised information about economic debates in Government time as soon as possible. Is he yet able to say when those debates might be, or will the disagreements between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England determine the time scale of economic debates in the House?

Mr. Newton: The timing of economic debates, details of which I still cannot give the hon. Lady, will be determined by what seems sensible and the convenience of the House.
The hon. Lady will realise that the problem with Opposition days is partly that the Opposition day debate that should have taken place yesterday was cancelled for reasons that we all understand and appreciate. That led to the tributes yesterday which we all heard—admirable tributes, if I may say so—and which slightly complicated matters. My recollection is that that Supply day will be the 13th and that there are eight such days yet to come. I shall do my best to ensure that they are as evenly spread as is consistent with securing the reasonable passage of Government business.
It may be that by now the motion on the Nolan report has been laid. If not, that will happen shortly. It makes provisions—I shall not read the full text of the terms of reference—for how the principal recommendations that relate to the House might be clarified and implemented and recommends specific resolutions for decision by the House. It is also required by the terms of reference that I am tabling that there should be an interim report, not later than Friday 7 July. As the hon. Lady knows, the purpose of setting that date is to provide an opportunity for debate were debate to be occasioned by the interim report.
As for when the resolution will be brought before the House, I expect and intend that that will happen the first week back after the recess. We shall want the Select Committee to meet as soon as it can after its terms of membership and reference have been agreed.

Mr. John Biffen: I appreciate that the business announced covers relations with Russia and the Ukraine but it does not mention Shropshire. May I inquire of my right hon. Friend that one may know soon that the Government have accepted the balanced and wise budgets determined by Shropshire county council and endorsed by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and myself, or is it still their intention to pursue confrontationally their original budget?

Mr. Newton: I had better say to my right hon. Friend that I would like to bring his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. A. J. Beith: When may we have a debate on the Green Paper proposals on identity cards, so that those of us who think that they are an unwelcome addition to the powers of the state over the individual and that they are wide open to fraud and error can make that view clear? When we get that debate, will those members of the Cabinet who agree with my view of this matter be allowed to speak?

Mr. Newton: I rather doubt whether there is any member of the Cabinet who would put any point in quite the same way as the right hon. Gentleman, but, in any event, I will certainly bear in mind the request for a debate on the identity card Green Paper.

Sir Terence Higgins: Should not my right hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that we abolished Supply days some years ago and that we have Opposition days nowadays? Could we have some time for debates on Select Committee reports, as there are a number of reports now outstanding which deserve time to be debated on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Newton: As always, I shall bear in mind my right hon. Friend's courteously put requests. I would just make the point that I acted extremely promptly in response to a request from one Select Committee Chairman, and others recently, to provide time for the debate that took place on the affairs of the Church Commissioners.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House knows that I speak as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. If not in the first week back, when can we now expect to debate the senior salaries review board's recent recommendations on parliamentary pensions?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but the right hon. Gentleman above all will know that my task is to consult the trustees in advance of that, and that I hope to do fairly soon after the recess.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In fully supporting the views just expressed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), may I also pick up a point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)? It would be very helpful indeed if the House could have a full economic debate to enable Conservative Members to display to the House the amazing amount of good news about the United Kingdom economy, and at the same time enable Conservative Members who wish to do so to provide some very positive and helpful suggestions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government that will help the Conservatives to win the next general election.

Mr. Newton: I always particularly enjoy my hon. Friend's helpful and positive suggestions.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has the Leader of the House seen the statement by GEC Alsthom and ABB, both of which are rolling stock manufacturers, which says that the Government's attitude towards private finance for railway privatisation is a totally pointless exercise? Will he therefore arrange, since hundreds of jobs are at risk in railway rolling stock in this country, for us to have an urgent debate, as soon as the House reassembles, on the total chaos that is being created in the railway industry by the utterly unwarranted nonsense of privatisation?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept either half of the hon. Lady's propositions about the effects of rail privatisation, or, indeed, its interrelationship with the private finance initiative, but I will of course draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When we return, may we have a teach-in on share options, because there

seems to be considerable ignorance in the House on the mechanics and working of share options, which was particularly well displayed by the Leader of the Opposition, who knows about the proceeds of share options because they financed his leadership campaign?

Mr. Newton: There seemed to be a good deal of misunderstanding, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister more than adequately corrected it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the business for the week after the holiday is not exactly fizzing with ideas, would it not be a good opportunity to have a debate about nurses' pay, especially taking into account the fact that the Prime Minister, within five minutes, was justifying share options of more than £250,000 while attacking nurses who are struggling to get 3 per cent? It is high time that we were able to declare to the people out there that nurses do not want to go on strike, they just want justice. If a minimum rate of pay is good enough for Members of Parliament, it should be good enough for nurses up and down the country.

Mr. Newton: The notion that my right hon. Friend was in any way attacking nurses is totally inconsistent with anything that he said this afternoon or on any other occasion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the present Government who gave the nurses the independent pay review body that they had always wished to have.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the debates that have followed the Nolan committee report it has become clear that the interaction between some of the recommendations and the possible composition of this place is close. In the possible debate on the subject, will my right hon. Friend allow us to discuss the nature of the House of Commons that is required in the 21st century and to make some suggestions as to what Nolan might look at next, such as the undisclosed financial interests of a number of journalists?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the Nolan committee will note my hon. Friend's latter suggestion. It would be for the Chair to judge what might or might not be in order in such a debate, but I suspect that my hon. Friend would find his own ingenious way into it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister responsible to make a statement to the House following the meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Dublin between 29 May and 2 June? When he relays that request, will he also ask whether there is any truth in the rumour that a deal has been done between the British whaling commissioner and the Faroese over not raising in the plenary session the issue of pilot whale slaughter? Those Faroese who are slaughtering the pilot whales are murdering scum. If any deal has been done between the British commissioner and the Faroese there will be an awful lot of anger in Britain.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend responsible for those matters will note the hon. Gentleman's comments and, of course, attribute to them the weight that his serious interest in these matters over a long period of time would rightly merit. I cannot make any promises about a statement, but I shall certainly bring the request to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for us to debate early-day motion 1175 on the shocking report about child abuse in Islington?
[That this House deplores the behaviour of the honourable Member for Barking in seeking to shuffle the blame onto others for the findings of the independent White Report; condemns Islington Borough Council which, during the period when the honourable Member for Barking was its leader, betrayed the children in its care, exposing them to severe abuse in council-run homes, failed to investigate such abuses and allowed those responsible to escape unpunished; believes that the stain of political correctness and corruption ingrained in Labour-run local authorities like Islington led to this scandal; and calls upon the honourable Member to accept her share of the responsibility and to apologise without reservation to the victims.]
Such a debate would enable us to establish whether the matter should be brought before the appropriate Select Committee so that those involved can be closely questioned, including the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who was leader of the council at the time and dismissed the report when it was brought to her as simply sensationalist journalism.

Mr. Newton: The question of what a Select Committee should consider is for the Select Committee itself, in this case the Select Committee on Health, and I have no doubt that that suggestion will be noted. My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago about the fact that the reports of what has occurred obviously cause considerable concern. I hope that Islington borough council will act swiftly on the recommendation in the White report that the council should review its equal opportunities policy in its application to child care.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to how it is proposed to enact the European Community data protection directive, which goes way beyond the Data Protection Act 1984 passed by the House? If the Government are to enact it, should not it be via primary legislation rather than piecemeal reserve powers?

Mr. Newton: As always, I shall give consideration to a point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I am not in a position to speculate on that consideration at the moment.

Mr. Piers Merchant: In view of the tragic bus accident on the M4 earlier this week in which, sadly, 10 people lost their lives, will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity for a debate on coach safety and, in particular, the fitting of safety belts on Britain's coach fleet and whether the present maximum speed limits are satisfactory for coaches?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that, as I said in the House yesterday morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked for an urgent report on the accident and it is being looked into by the Vehicle Inspectorate. Any question of a debate might sensibly await the outcome of those investigations.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the national lottery? He will be aware that a national lottery was justified by the fact that it would provide money for good causes. Would

not it be good if we could debate the fact that £13 million has gone into the back pocket of a Tory Member of Parliament and huge profits are now going into private pockets? It is not time that we had a look at where that money is going?

Mr. Newton: It may be appropriate in due course to debate the early experience of the lottery, but we are talking about very early experience. It is clear from further distributions this week, for example, among the arts, especially at regional level, that many of the causes in which I am sure that the hon. Lady is interested are benefiting.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local authority market rights? Is he aware that Labour-controlled Leicester city council, owing to the six and one third mile rule, has prevented citizens in Oadby and Wigston in my constituency from holding a market to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the civil war in Leicestershire? Does he not agree that it is wholly undemocratic that socialists in the city of Leicester can control the rights of people who cannot even vote for them?

Mr. Newton: I had better confess that I was not fully informed about the precise circumstances in Leicestershire that my hon. Friend has described, but I shall ensure that the matter is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and others.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate to have an early debate on the future of capping of local authority expenditure, with a view to reviewing whether caps should continue, while retaining some system of control to ensure that there is not excessive expenditure and demands made by profligate Labour local authorities?

Mr. Newton: The whole way in which Labour authorities use money, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister adverted at Prime Minister's Question Time, may merit debate, but I regret that I cannot propose such a debate next week.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the terms of reference of the committee set up to consider the Nolan recommendations will be debatable? Will he give an undertaking that there will be a specific allocation of time for such a debate? In referring to the terms of reference, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned resolutions. If resolutions are introduced, will he ensure that the Committee is invited to consider what would happen to Members who consistently defy such resolutions? As he will know, some hon. Members consistently refuse to observe resolutions relating to Members' interests—as have some former hon. Members—and nothing is ever done about it. Will he ensure that next time we are advised on what would happen if hon. Members refused to observe such resolutions?

Mr. Newton: The question of a debate would normally be discussed through the usual channels, of which I would expect to take account. The particular aspects of the Nolan recommendations to which the hon. Gentleman referred are for the Committee to consider, along with all the other Nolan recommendations in relation to the House.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: May we have an early opportunity to discuss the problems of endangered species? The Leader of the House will understand the urgency of that request since today's opinion poll shows that the popularity of the Conservatives is at a record low?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have, no doubt, made such a point on a number of earlier occasions. As I have said several times in the House, that point was pretty frequently made two years before the last election and look what happened then.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the welcome given by many of my constituents and others in the country for the consultation paper on identity cards, may I support the request of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for an early debate on the subject? Will not such a debate provide an opportunity to rebut some of the phoney arguments against the cards' introduction?

Mr. Newton: I am almost being invited to take every side in the debate before we even have it, but I note that further request for such a debate.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the problems of thousands of householders caused by negative equity? Does he realise that negative equity is causing great anxiety to many families, including those in Braintree, Macclesfield, Thurrock and elsewhere? The Government and the Opposition have to deal with the problem because it is jeopardising our economy and blighting the lives of many thousands of families.

Mr. Newton: The most effective contribution that the Government can make over a period is to ensure that the present economic recovery is sustained. That is what we are doing and will continue to do.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the abilities of those who make decisions in the Ministry of Defence? Will he explain how anyone with any ability can close the Royal Marines school of music when independent accountants said that the Ministry of Defence's figures are wrong, when independent chartered surveyors acting as valuers said they are wrong and when some 300 jobs are likely to be lost from the largest employer in Deal? Surely it is about time that we had proper financial decision-making in Government and not that undertaken by the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has rightly, honourably and properly made his point about the Royal Marines music school at Deal for a long time. I know, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will know, how disappointing the decision is to the people of Deal, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: May we have an early debate on the Government's policy of removing surplus places from schools? Is he aware that one of the biggest schemes has been in Warwickshire which has been thrown into chaos and where the plug may have to be pulled on part of the reorganisation because of delays by the Government and the Department for Education in making decisions? They got their procedures wrong and have had to be hauled before the courts to be

told that they have not only shortchanged the children of Warwickshire in terms of school funding but messed up the administration of the whole reorganisation scheme.

Mr. Newton: I cannot make a quick, off-the-cuff comment on what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall, of course, bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Britain's nuclear deterrent? Although they are clear about our policy, a number of my constituents are concerned that there seems to be a difference of opinion in the Labour party. Labour Back Benchers think that we should get rid of our nuclear deterrent whereas members of Labour's Front Bench want to hang on to it but never use it. Is there not a need for a debate so that Labour Front Benchers may have the opportunity to explain to the Great British public why they intend to waste money on what they will not use while we see the necessity for a deterrent?

Mr. Newton: If the time existed in the parliamentary timetable, I would be tempted to have as a match for every Opposition day a Government day when we could debate what the Opposition do not want to talk about, and that would be one of the topics.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Today, probably at this very moment, the House of Lords is discussing electoral registration and the fact that the electoral register is in an utter mess because between 3 million and 4 million are missing from it. If the unelected House can discuss this key issue, why cannot this House do the same, given that we are directly elected?

Mr. Newton: Despite the hon. Gentleman's rather aggressive style from time to time, I always consider what he says, but my positive and constructive suggestion to him, as to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is that he might consider raising the issue on a Wednesday morning.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on inheritance tax immediately after the recess so that we can investigate what the effect on nurses and others would be of the Labour party's proposals apparently to tax the passing of gifts from one spouse to another? Should not the House consider what Labour is proposing?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend echoes a point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made, and he presents a further attractive possibility for a debate.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Education to come to the House to make a statement about education expenditure? Will he specifically ask her to clarify the contradiction which exists between her Department's position and that of Cheshire county council—which is Conservative and Liberal-controlled—over SSA expenditure on education? Either one party or the other is right, but both parties involved are the Conservative party. Only one approach can be right—which is it?

Mr. Newton: I always seek to provide clarification where I can, and I note the hon. Gentleman's request in this case.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I reiterate to my right hon. Friend my previous pleas for an early debate on the European aspects of civil air transport policy? Will he find time on our first Thursday back—in addition to the debates on Russia and Ukraine—to discuss the proposed European flight time limitations, about which the British Air Line Pilots Association has severe reservations?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's reservation and while I cannot make promises, I shall keep it in mind.

Mr. Paul Flynn: While it is right that we should debate the awful tragedy on the M4 this week in which 10 people died, should not we also debate the 60 deaths a week which occur on the roads of this country? The people killed include Anne Carrinton, who was killed on 1 February in Fleet, Hampshire, and Susan Gardiner, who was killed on 12 February in Brentwood, both of whose families asked me to bring those deaths to the attention of the House because they believe that they were caused in collisions with slow-moving vehicles carrying bull bars. Is not it right that we consider what opportunities there are for us to reduce the terrible number of 60 deaths a week by practical methods, such as daylight saving, compulsory seat belts and banning bull bars?

Mr. Newton: Either the hon. Gentleman or someone else—I apologise for my memory not being clearer—has put this point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] It was the hon. Gentleman. In that case, he will recall that my right hon. Friend undertook to look into the matter. No doubt he is doing so, and he will respond to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on equal opportunities for both men and women? I raise the matter because serious concerns have arisen that women are being offered positive discrimination in the selection of Labour candidates for parliamentary seats. That is demeaning, insulting and undemocratic.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's view about the matter is widely shared, not least by many other women.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the extraordinary admission tucked away discreetly in Monday's written questions that the Government have had to approve retrospectively and on an extra-statutory basis £165 million worth of managerial expenses paid unlawfully by the Government between 1 April 1991, when the new NHS internal market reforms came in, and 1 April 1995? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a totally unprecedented breakdown of public expenditure control has occurred? Should not any Government who take pride in looking after the public finances and the rule of law as governed by the House recognise that something terribly serious has gone wrong? Has not the matter been given a fig leaf of parliamentary respectability by the extra-statutory payments authorisation? Does not the matter require a debate as to whether the original law was

defective or deliberately deceptive because the Government wished to hide the rampant growth in managerialism following the new legislation?

Mr. Newton: I cannot judge whether the matter requires a debate at the moment, but there are various ways of looking at such matters. In any event, I would first want to draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when we used to have the Budget in March, there used to be a separate public expenditure White Paper in the autumn and a series of debates devoted to that topic? Echoing the request of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), would not it be useful to have a debate about public expenditure, so that the Government could demonstrate how Conservatives are manfully striving to control it, whereas every policy statement by the Opposition shows that they are determined to increase it whatever they may be pretending?

Mr. Newton: That appears to be another good candidate for the putative Government days to which I referred and I will bear it in mind. It also adds to the strength of the case for the economic day for which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have an early debate on the unfolding scandal of the Churchill papers? May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to column 647 in yesterday's Hansard where, in reply to questions that I tabled, the Heritage Secretary confirmed that the £12.5 million valuation was conjured out of the air by an antiquarian bookseller and that the collection has not even been fully catalogued? Is not that a grotesque scandal and a waste of money?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the board in question took the best possible advice before coming to its conclusion and I do not think that anything that the hon. Gentleman has said in the past few moments calls that into question.

Mr. James Clappison: May I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) for a debate on spending, which the Opposition ought to welcome? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition promised a long and gruelling slog to control public expenditure while, in the past three weeks alone, Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on health, transport and industry have made commitments at the Dispatch Box to increase spending? Could we have a debate to clear up any misunderstanding about that and to find out who is going on the gruelling slog, or whether the Leader of the Opposition will be going off on a frolic of his own and the rest of the Labour party have dropped out already?

Mr. Newton: If I can combine the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) wanted with the more closely targeted debate that my hon. Friend has just advocated, I would be happy to find time for it and will bear it very much in mind.

Mr. Nigel Evans: May I support the call by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for a debate on rail privatisation? It was a great shame that, in the debate the other day, only five of


her comrades turned up—all sponsored by one transport union or the other. Such a debate would give us an opportunity to concentrate on the statement by Jimmy Knapp that, if his members do not get a 6 per cent. pay rise, they will embark on another damaging strike. Perhaps this time we can get across the message that, if they do so, the only people whom it will damage will be the people they are there to serve—their customers.

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that his words will be borne in mind by those at whom they were directed.

Mr. John Marshall: As one of the sponsors, may I echo the plea for an early debate on early-day motion 1175? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is one of the biggest scandals in local government in London? Will he congratulate the Evening Standard on its persistent and responsible campaign which unmasked this scandal, and will he condemn the indifference of the Labour party to that scandal in the home of new Labour—Islington?

Mr. Newton: From what I have seen, I would certainly want to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Evening Standard on bringing that matter to the public's attention. I have already made some observations about what I hope those concerned with the affairs of Islington borough council will do about it.

Coal Industry

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I beg to move,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.
This will be the ninth annual order under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, and it has two purposes. First, it specifies the kind of restructuring expenditure incurred by British Coal in the present financial year for which grant may be paid. Those are: redundancy and early retirement; retraining through the job and career exchange scheme; and, new employment. The latter includes the costs incurred by British Coal Enterprise in promoting new job opportunities in areas affected by pit closures.
Those are the same categories of expenditure as was specified in last year's order, except for transfer allowances, which are not included in this year's order, since British Coal will not be incurring any expenditure in that area this year.
Secondly, the order sets at 90 per cent.—as last year—the maximum percentage of restructuring costs which can be met by restructuring grant in the current financial year.
Restructuring grant has proved to be an essential part of the Government's assistance to British Coal. It has helped the industry to adapt to changing circumstances, by supporting generous redundancy terms for miners and staff who are losing jobs as a result of closures and efficiency improvements. British Coal Enterprise estimates that it has created over 120,000 job opportunities, and retrained and resettled, mostly in alternative employment, some 57,000 people since 1984.
The order will allow the Government to continue to support the industry for a further year. The main expenditures this year will be related to retraining and new employment.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity of responding to the Minister on this matter.
It is perhaps fitting that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair. I should like briefly to refer to the death yesterday of Harold Wilson, because I have here a book that he wrote in 1945, entitled "A Plan for Coal". This book was sent by him to Will Lawther, who was president of the National Union of Mineworkers and who was kind enough to pass it on to me.
With your mining background, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that Harold Wilson was a great friend of the industry and the miners. He regularly attended the big meeting days, and made major speeches before them. I remember how in 1965, when he came to the Durham miners' gala, it poured down all day, and the crowds could not assemble. He nevertheless passed out his speech to the press as if he had read it, and enjoyed the festivities as best he could.
It is fitting that, in discussing this mining industry order, he should be remembered today as he was yesterday, and that the work that he carried out half a century ago in "A Plan for Coal" is remembered and placed on the record.
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through the order. It may be the last day before the recess, and the day of a by-election, and it may be eighth or ninth order which the Minister and Government have brought to the House, but nevertheless it would have been helpful if the Minister had taken a little longer to go through it. We on this side of the House will seek to rectify that for him.
As the Minister said in his brief introduction, under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, the Secretary of State can, and does, make grants to British Coal to cover some of the costs incurred as a result of the restructuring of the coal industry. In October 1992, the Government announced what they described as a substantial and wide-ranging package of new measures to assist the coalfield communities. They included extra help for inward investment, promotion and additional activity in British Coal Enterprise.
We fully recognise the role that BCE has played in helping to create over 120,000 job opportunities in coalfield areas across the country—a role which covers business funding, the workplace and outplacement. We also recognise that the £93 million that BCE has committed to job creation projects has attracted from other funders a further £670 million of inward investment into the coalfields. The future existence of BCE, however, remains uncertain, notwithstanding the commitments in the Government's White Paper.
I am glad to see that I am in very good company today, with my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), to name but a few.
We want to debate the order and to consider the future of British Coal Enterprise and its work force, who did not know, for example, until February of this year that the grants given for 1995–96 by this statutory instrument would be forthcoming. Consultation is never a high priority in the Government's mind. To this day, the staff of British Coal Enterprise do not know whether they will be in a job this time next year.
The staff of British Coal Enterprise are not alone in the uncertainty they feel about their jobs. Many of us meet constituents who tell us that they are on short-term contracts. We meet constituents who are casual workers and whose jobs do not provide holiday pay or sickness benefit. Those people cannot feel the so-called feel-good factor, because they do not know whether they will be in a job in a year's time, and they do not know whether they will have a roof over their heads. Low morale afflicts the country, so it is not surprising that morale at British Coal Enterprise is extremely low.
Low morale can affect not only the individual concerned, but the services that that individual renders. From all the information we are getting, it is clear that many ex-mining staff still need long-term assistance. A report produced by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, after surveying almost 900 ex-miners from five pits that ceased production in October 1992—the figures are supported by an independent CBI survey and by a survey conducted by Derbyshire county council—showed that

only 44 per cent. were in employment. Some 46 per cent. were unemployed, and 9 per cent. were in training or education.
Of those who were unemployed, 80 per cent. had had no work since leaving the industry. Those who were in employment earned much less than they had as miners. On average, they earned £70 a week less than they had in the mining industry. Overall, 89 per cent. were worse off at the time of the survey than they had been when they worked in the pits.
We submit to the House that there is much hidden unemployment among ex-miners. Some 30 per cent. were claiming sickness benefit which did not show up on the unemployment register. That is a higher proportion than one would expect, as a result of the unhealthy effects of working down a pit, especially as the average age of those surveyed was 38. Those surveyed were in the prime of their working lives.
The survey shows that morale is low among redundant miners, and that low morale can lead to illness. It shows that the hope of getting a job is so small that it is not surprising that morale is low. With low morale and so few job prospects, as in all such circumstances, it is the small, niggling things in life which attain greater importance.
If we take an overview of the economy based on the survey and assume similar levels of unemployment and low pay throughout mining areas, we can see that spending power of more than £300 million a year has been lost to coalfield communities as a result of the job losses since October 1992.
As my hon. Friends know, I come from a mining area. I have written a book about colliery life, which is not as famous as other books that I have written in my time. My father spent 51 years in the pits, and I began my working life in the colliery office.
I can testify to the House that there is a keen sense of community spirit in the mining areas, as you know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The former pitmen have a great desire to be independent and to pay their own way through life. With that background, that desire, a sense of independence and a sense of community spirit, how fertile is the prospect for regeneration. Even under this Government, it would not take a great deal, if they brought all the assistance together, for the former miners to be able to help themselves.
We shall not let the Government forget their 1992 White Paper, in which they declared that they would increase the amount available for regeneration measures up to £200 million. It announced that the funds would allow important new major projects to go ahead, which would promote new employment opportunities.
The Opposition are entitled to ask where the money has gone. It has gone into training and enterprise councils, and industrial estates. We have seen, somewhat tardily, two enterprise zones, and a third has only just opened. But that is not new money, and it is not conditional. How often have we sat in the House and heard the President of the Board of Trade tell us that he is putting new money into the economy? It turns out to be the same money as he announced in last year's White Paper, and the same money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget.
The £200 million which the Government talked about was already allocated to training and enterprise councils, English Estates and even the Welsh Development


Agency. Among the Government's other great attributes, they are able to launder money. They have used the same money time and again, but they say in their White Papers that it is new money.
Apart from laundering money, what else have the Government been doing in terms of energy policy? What other nefarious activities have they been up to? As Opposition Members know, and as the mining communities know better than anyone, the Government have no energy policy other than a dash for gas. They have set miners and mining communities aside, as tools to be disposed of at will. The Government's higgledy-piggledy approach to energy created those circumstances in the first place. Miners who have not found work and who are on the dole must look askance at the so-called "fat cats" in the energy industry, who line not only their own pockets with monumental fees and share options but the pockets of their wives.
Those of us who watched the extraordinary exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will have noticed that the one thing which the Prime Minister has not learnt is Lord Healey's adage: "When you are in a hole, you should stop digging." The Prime Minister kept digging throughout the exchanges. He talked about independent taxation and gifts inter vivos. Obviously, that was over the heads of all those who listened and watched it on television.
I remember as a child learning a poem about the mining industry, which told of how the pitman was wakened in the early morning and made his way to the coalface.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Tell it to us.

Mr. Bell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) will know, he was wakened by the coaler's knock on the window. He went to the coalface to batter at the grimy rock, and he thought of all those pampered ones sleeping in what he described as the "midnight sable gloom". And he thought of all those who were above sleeping, and how they could safely bloom.
What does a former miner who is unemployed see as he looks around him at those who run the energy industry—and even at their wives? Not only are they taking home lavish pay packets and enjoying wonderful share option schemes, but their wives are dipping in, too. What we saw was not a dash for gas but a dash for greed—[HON. MEMBERS: "A dash for cash."] It is cash for questions, cash for gas, but no cash for unemployed miners.
We acknowledge and accept the considerable help from the European Union's RECHAR fund to help coalfields across the European Union. The first phase brought £135 million of European Union funding to the United Kingdom, and the second phase was recently agreed. However, that will only begin to deal with the scale of the effort needed to regenerate coalfield economies. If the Government were to allow British Coal Enterprise to go, and if they fail to honour their commitments in the 1992 White Paper, the United Kingdom would be the only coal producer in Europe without a regeneration programme in the coalfields.
In helping coalfields regenerate, we are a poor second to France and Belgium. In the Flemish coalfield, closures were phased over 10 years, to allow a proper transition within the local economy. In this country, the coal

industry has had the best vocational training and education schemes. The old National Coal Board was among the best in that respect.
One personnel director began as an apprentice electrician in the industry at the age of 15. He worked his way to the metaphorical top because of a training scheme. Another man, who became director of the north-east area of British Coal, also began working in the industry at the age of 15.
Miners have shown a willingness to undertake training, to learn new skills, to develop new enterprises and to be part of the changing economic scene. They need help over and above that offered by the order. They do not need any rhetoric, although we certainly did not get any from the Minister. They need assistance; they do not need promises. They need certainty; they do not need doubt and confusion.
Since the original pit closures were announced on 13 October 1992, the Government and British Coal have closed 34 of the 50 deep-mine pits then in operation. That led to the loss of 40,000 jobs directly—half the number of those at Wembley stadium watching the cup final on Saturday. Tens of thousands of other ancillary and support jobs were also lost. Before that announcement, 150,000 jobs had been lost from the industry in the previous 10 years. Wembley stadium could be filled twice over with unemployed miners.
The industry now has to cope with the uncertainty about British Coal Enterprise. If the Government had a heart and the will, they would stir themselves within the Department of Trade and Industry. If they cared, they would bring together various strands of policy aimed at regeneration. If they cared, they would create a coherent regional development policy that drew upon the strengths of the coalfields. If they cared, they would replace pessimism with hope, and offer a fair deal to former miners to help themselves.
Although the Opposition welcome the order, as we have welcomed other orders introduced in the past few years, the Government, might, just might, give the impression to the coalfield communities that they care.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that, since the order is providing some resources for the mining industry and mining communities, it would be illogical for the Opposition to vote against it. That does not mean that we should allow the debate to pass without drawing attention to the grievous scale of need that exists in the coalfield communities.
As my hon. Friend has said, we have seen an enormous contraction in the industry. Coal is not being mined in my constituency, for the first time in more than three and a half centuries. When I entered the House there were 12 collieries in my constituency, and other related industries; now we have none. We are now witnessing the consequences of the destruction of jobs on a scale not seen at any other time in our industrial history. That loss emphasises the need to which my hon. Friend has referred and is why I endorse what he said about the importance of maintaining British Coal Enterprise.
We were fortunate, I suppose, to receive recycled, or laundered, money to finance the Dearne valley city grant, which was one of the first such schemes to be established.


It has been relatively successful, but it is not far from the end of its projected lifespan. If our local authorities continue to be subject to existing capping procedures, they will be unable to fund that project and carry on the work that the Government exhorted us to undertake.
British Coal Enterprise is one agency that could assist in guaranteeing that work. I have considerable respect for Mr. Philip Andrew, the leader of that undertaking. I believe that security of tenure should be offered to Mr. Andrew and his organisation, because that would at least enable those of us who represent constituencies covered by city grant schemes to be certain that mechanisms will be created to allow the substantial investments that have already been made to be brought to fruition.
It has cost thousands of pounds per acre to reclaim some of the land used in such schemes. The Government would surely be idiotic if they allowed such investment to be made but did not fund the agencies that would ensure that it bore fruit.
That is particularly true in the Dearne valley, which has benefited from one of the first city grant schemes—now coming to an end—and one of the two enterprise zones to which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred. We were promised that enterprise zone a long time ago, but it has only just been authorised. The loss of the agencies or any organisation that could help to develop the enterprise zones would constitute a betrayal of areas in enormous need.
I remind the Minister that, in the 1960s, when some of us wanted economic diversification in our area because our eggs were all in the baskets of coal and steel, public bodies such as the regional civil service told us that ours must be the major coal reservoir in the British Isles. They specifically discouraged economic diversification. Following the decision to inflict rapid contraction on our industry, there must be a national obligation of some kind.
If that constitutes wisdom, the obligation is even greater. The miners may have received redundancy pay, but the jobs have disappeared. The outlook for the younger generation in areas such as ours is very bleak. Ministers should understand that they have an obligation to serve the whole country, even areas that have rejected the Government decisively.
As I have said, in our Dearne valley enterprise zone, substantial amounts of public money have been spent on reclaiming land and preparing it for the economic development that we so desperately need. Immediately south of the enterprise zone and the Dearne valley reclamation area is a portion of green belt. It is green belt because the local authority has taken cognisance of the local community, and because it needs to be green belt: it is attractive, although it is adjacent to hundreds of acres of dereliction. British Coal, however, refuses to fulfil its promise to sell that farm land to the farmer, as many of us expected it would, because it is going to try to sell it as development land.
I ask the Minister to comment on the sanity of spending public money to reclaim devastated, derelict industrial land at enormous expense when British Coal wants to take neighbouring green belt land out of the green belt and sell it for development—thus negating the investment in the reclamation just a few yards away, and making a particularly pleasant farm unviable by reducing the acreage to below the minimum required.
I wrote to British Coal about the matter, and was told, "British Coal believes that it should be development land"—although the local authority and the local community believe that the land should remain in the green belt. We have little enough attractive green belt land as it is; I see no point in taking any away when 1,200 or 1,400 acres of land are being reclaimed under the city grant scheme.
I then wrote to the Minister, pointing out that the decision appeared to constitute a broken promise and an example of irresponsibility that disdained the public investment that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Has the hon. Gentleman's letter to the Minister anything to do with the order? I hope that he will return to that subject.

Mr. Hardy: Let me explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker. British Coal seeks not only to obtain the money that the order makes available, but to obtain more than it should from the sale of green belt land. That is perfectly logical—but let me take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say that I hope the Minister will ensure that the Government are not so parsimonious that British Coal must go around selling green belt land to make money when it ought to sell it for the much lesser sum that would be available if the tenant farmer were given the opportunity he should enjoy.
Finally, let me remind the Minister of a point I made earlier. A few months ago, the Church of England Children's Society brought some young people to the House to see me. They were ordinary boys and girls of about 15 years of age who were not the sorts of kids who would go into higher education. I do not suggest that they were below average ability, but they were the sorts of boys and girls who would become skilled and semi-skilled workers—the backbone of our society. In the previous two centuries, they would have been employed in the coal and steel industries. But those jobs have now gone.
The worst moment of my 25 years' service in the House of Commons came when I talked to those ordinary kids of 15 about their outlook, prospects and hopes for the future. The Minister should understand that they have no hope, and they see few prospects or opportunities. Therefore, we are not begging the Minister to provide crumbs for the coal areas and the coalfield communities; we are telling the Minister that a wise Government will ensure that the hope that has been blighted in the past 20 years is somehow restored. This measure will provide a little of the assistance that those people need.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order is set against the very bleak background to which my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) have referred. It is probably the bleakest period in all of my years in this place.
We have talked about the possibility of mass unemployment, and I suppose that on many occasions we have made what some would consider to be idle threats about it. The truth is that mass unemployment has now reached devastating proportions, and that it affects every constituency. The scale of the problem is almost unbelievable. Unless this or a future Government address


their task properly and provide adequate restructuring grants, they will be unable to deal with the difficult social climate and the devastated social fabric of coalfield communities. That is a terrifying prospect.
Whatever little money will result from the grants for retraining, retirement packages and new industries or from the puny efforts of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.—which I am afraid I cannot laud to the skies; we must emphasise that job opportunities are not jobs—it will be infinitesimal compared with the job in hand.
There are no pits left in my constituency or in the whole of north Derbyshire, and the prospects of attracting new industry on any reasonable scale pale into insignificance when compared with the 1960s, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth mentioned. I saw pits close in my local authority area. It was possible for most of those miners—or a good proportion of them—to find work in other pits, because there were other pits to go to.
However, there are no pits to go to now. Probably only 10 per cent. of miners are able to find work in the few pits that remain. A survey conducted by the county council—we can see it also from a head count of local people—found that more than 50 per cent. of miners and all the inhabitants of some pit villages are unemployed. The situation is not improving. Whatever the feel-good factor may be in the rest of Britain, those people are not feeling it. They are becoming more disillusioned with every week that passes.
We have some responsibility to try to find a way out of that predicament. Assuming that the Government are not interested—apart from passing today's relatively minor order—we must have a plan ready on this side of the House to try to combat that mass unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred to what happened in the 1960s. I was a part of that. Some 700 miners and 700 other staff used to work in a big factory in Pit lane. We thought we were great, and we were. Industry was on the move in the 1960s.
It was possible to attract industry by establishing special enterprise areas. Our claim to fame was that we attracted industry that would otherwise have gone to the continent, by getting an industrial development certificate. However, those certificates would not amount to a great deal today—first, because industry is not on the move; and, secondly, as a result of technology, there are no jobs, anyway. If five sheds on a big industrial estate have about 30 people working in them, they have done exceptionally well. We have to turn our attention to the background of the restructuring grants in an attempt to get round the problem.
We must be careful about opencast. In many cases, if opencast is agreed to in the pit environs, the prospect of introducing anything else is held back for another decade. Apart from the environmental shambles that it creates, opencast in all the coalfields will prevent the operations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred.
Unless we examine the prospects for what we can do, we all have to acknowledge that, even if we had 10 per cent. of the manufacturing increase that occurred in the 1960s when pits closed, we would be doing exceptionally well. We have to consider where the rest of the jobs are to come from. Assuming that we are returned to office, the Labour party has to get back to the idea of sharing work, and everyone working shorter hours to make more work available.
In all our constituencies, thousands of what would have been young miners receive neither training nor retraining. They do not even have the chance to go to the old Coal Board workshops or anywhere.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said, notwithstanding the restructuring grants, the amount of money circulating in the economy has reduced dramatically. The chances of creating more jobs as a result of people spending what bit of money they have are not very good. I should say in passing that now we have a wage freeze for the miners but a 23 per cent. increase for Richard Budge, the man running the English pits. That will also reduce the money available.
The grants do not address the real issues. We read every day, and it has been said in the House, that the grants should be applied to the problem of the water that is pouring out without control in every coalfield. There should be no more pumping. None of the money will be used for that. Land slicks are occurring in almost every coalfield; methane is pouring out of some of the old pits, and nobody gives two hoots. The grants should be applied to that in future, and there should be many more of them. That is the bleak picture, and we all know about it in our communities.
Of course we shall vote for the grants today, but they do not add up to a row of beans compared with the problems we face. They are set against the background that we forecast two or three years ago, when it was proposed to close the 31 pits—never mind the others. The world price of coal was already likely to rise, and it has already started to move.
What a crazy economic policy that was. We all know that it was the revenge of the Tory Government, and it has accelerated and accentuated the problems in our constituencies. We shall have to turn our attention to it in a year or two, and we had better ensure those on our Front Bench get some decent plans ready, because mass unemployment brings all kinds of problems in its wake.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Minister says that we are discussing the ninth such order. We do not know whether it will be the last, but it is important and significant as it votes money to British Coal Enterprise. The Minister will need no reminding that during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 the Government gave a commitment that British Coal Enterprise would survive the privatisation of British Coal and continue for some time after that. I am dismayed by the ad hoc arrangements that appear to have been made for British Coal Enterprise.
The order votes money for British Coal Enterprise in the current year, but I am well aware that there has been a protracted struggle to agree its future. It is important as it is the only economic development agency that focuses primarily and principally on the coalfield. It brings venture capital to companies in coalfield areas, it attracts new business and £78.6 million has been invested in business in coalfield areas. It has brought workshops to the areas. We needed the £40 million that enabled us to create 1.3 million sq ft of factory space on 47 sites. Most importantly, it is a partner for economic development. It can work with others such as the local authorities, to bring new jobs, new investment and a new future to coalfield communities.
That partnership has been blighted, however, by the lack of clarity about the long-term future of British Coal


Enterprise. One does not take a partner that could die at the end of the current financial year, and that is a real possibility for British Coal Enterprise.
I remind the Minister of the report that British Coal and the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned on the future of British Coal Enterprise entitled,
Market Opportunities and Structural Options",
that was produced in November 1994. I am disappointed that the report was never published. It sets out four options for the future of British Coal Enterprise, but as yet there is no clear way forward.
It is important that we agree a timetable. It is important that all of us who are actors in the coalfield and want to create a new future know what the platforms will be and who the actors are because there is still a need in coalfield areas. In 1980, there were 40,000 miners in Nottinghamshire; today there are fewer than 3,000. To put it another way, in 15 years, more than nine out of 10 mining jobs have gone.
Unemployment is reaching dangerously high peaks. The gap between unemployment in the United Kingdom and that in the coalfield communities is constantly increasing. Inequalities are being created. In April 1991, the gap between United Kingdom unemployment and the employment in the Mansfield travel-to-work area, which covers a large part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield was 2.1 per cent. By April 1995, that gap had grown to 6 per cent.
There is a clear divergence. Unemployment is worsening in pockets of the coalfield communities while nationally it is reducing. We have to take action on that and ensure that a clear timetable spelling out the future of British Coal Enterprise is discussed and agreed quickly. I understand that the Department and British Coal have Samuel Montagu and Co. Ltd. working on the issue now, but it is important that they come clean and that early decisions are made. People can live with decisions, but they cannot live with uncertainty.
Some former miners have found jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough talked about the work of the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which found that half the miners have found work, but are paid one third less than when they worked for British Coal. This year, Derbyshire county council produced a report with similar findings, showing that miners earn half what they earned down the pit, so there are real and continuing problems.
There is a severe loss of income into the local economy. One has only to walk around coalfield communities to see the number of shops that have shut to see how difficult things are.
Some miners have been more fortunate. I have with me the minutes of a meeting held on 11 January 1993. It was agreed at the meeting that the former miner concerned was to receive good redundancy terms and excellent pension arrangements from British Coal, together with a car and a new house. He has gone on to be appointed by the Government to work on industrial tribunals at £80 a day, and has been appointed to the Coal Authority at £5,500 a year. He is also employed by the Prince's Youth Business Trust as a business advisor at £20,000 a year. That post is funded by British Coal Enterprises. As well as his redundancy package, this gentleman is now receiving nearly £30,000: he has been well looked after.
The man in question, Roy Lynk, is the former president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. I find it astonishing that he should get his pension and a house and a car and yet be paid nearly £30,000 from Government funds. There are people in the coal industry who say that he is being well looked after. I wish that the Government were looking after the other miners who have lost their jobs and who feel betrayed as well as they look after Mr. Roy Lynk.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and give another group of people a fair chance for the future. He will perhaps know that the British Association of Colliery Management is holding its annual conference at the moment. He has received letters from the president of the BACM about a small group of people who are members of what is known as the triple-S scheme—the staff superannuation scheme. They worked for British Coal right to the end of its life and were then transferred to new employers. They, like their colleagues, can get their pensions at 50 if they leave their jobs in, or are made redundant by, the successor company. But if they move from the successor company to another firm and then lose their jobs, they cannot take their pensions at 50.
Fewer than 3,000 people make up this small group. I hope that the Minister will treat them with equity and examine ways of enabling them to take their pensions at 50, like their colleagues do. The money is already there—it is in the pension fund. I hope that the Minister will therefore consider my suggestion, and take this opportunity to respond to an invitation from the BACM and the pension fund trustees to discuss the issue. I am dismayed to learn that he has so far not met them. The conference meets tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will take a step forward and announce that he is prepared to discuss the future with the conference.
Tonight we are discussing that future. There is a strong feeling in the coalfield communities that the Government have buried the deep coal industry deep and then tried to walk away from it. We in the coalfield communities are pragmatic and hardworking. We want more for our children than we have had. We need to invest in jobs and infrastructure to create a better future for them.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: After one false start we finally get to the blocks, as it were.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this order, which will permit funding to be released for the costs of retirements, redundancies, retraining and new employment following the changes in the coal industry resulting from the privatisation of British Coal. The full cost of that privatisation in terms of jobs has been immense. Before privatisation the Government spent years encouraging the industry to run itself down to a small rump in preparation for the goal of selling it off. The Government's closure programme finished off the last two pits in my constituency—Bentley and Hatfield—and they had already closed down the Askern and Brodsworth collieries a couple of years before.
Taken together, the closures were nothing short of industrial vandalism on a massive scale. Closing profitable pits such as Bentley was economic madness. The jobs lost at Hatfield numbered 700, and 600 were lost at Bentley. That was a further blow to Doncaster's already


damaged economy which, in the 1970s, relied on 10 pits and 18,000 mining jobs, not to mention all the other industries that worked in and about the mining industry.
Now the town is having to rebuild. I suppose that the little money from these orders will go towards helping it to do so. Incidentally, the Hatfield pit has reopened under a private management buy-out scheme, and is doing quite well selling coal that the Government said could not be mined or sold economically. The team at the colliery is doing well. I wish its members well and I hope that they will build on their success.
There has thus been some relief in the way of jobs, but not much. Only 200 people work at the pit, but every job is encouraging. Still, the unemployment rate remains well above the national average. What towns like Doncaster need is Government support to make up for the difficulties of the closures. We need more retraining and the creation of new jobs by attracting firms to Doncaster. The local authority has done a great deal in this respect. The town's amenities have been improved; it has good road links in the form of the M1, the M18, the M62 and the A1. The east coast main line runs through Doncaster, and we are developing a railport so that we can key into European railfreight.

Mr. Jack Thompson: My constituency is slightly further north than my hon. Friend's but I regularly travel through Doncaster on the main line. Indeed, my hon. Friend and I often travel north together on the train from King's Cross. Has he noticed, as I have, the huge industrial and commercial developments around Peterborough and Grantham? I think that, with the right sort of support from the Government, they could have been located in Doncaster, Wansbeck or other parts north. There is no particular reason why they should have ended up in the home counties. Under the old industrial development certificate arrangements such industries did come to areas such as ours.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend's point is perfectly valid. Each time I travel on the east coast main line—I look forward to doing so again later today—I notice those developments at Peterborough. We need Government help for such projects in Doncaster and Wansbeck.
To the east, west, north and south Doncaster has good road and rail links which will prove a key feature of the council's attempts to rebuild—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman has strayed rather wide of the order. Will he now come back to it? I am sure that he is well aware of what it contains.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that the money granted in these orders could and should have been used in the areas that I have described to replace the jobs that have been lost in mining. Certainly, the Government have put some of the money into Doncaster, but at the same time they have cut spending on the town, which makes life difficult for the local authority. The local authority, however, is working with the private sector. There are successful partnerships that will be able properly to use the funding that will flow from the order, as well as funding from other sources.
If the Government want to help Doncaster, they could support its attempts to secure RAF Finningley as a commercial airport after the RAF pulls out next year. That

could help them to solve the problems surrounding the fifth terminal at Heathrow. After all, Doncaster is only one and a half hours away from London by train. It takes almost that time to travel from this place to Heathrow. Another consideration is that Manchester is only a short drive from Doncaster across the M62.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may well be, but the hon. Member must direct his remarks to the order.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the order in terms of training and helping to reskill the work force in Doncaster in assisting it to find new jobs.
Doncaster has been lucky to have the benefit of British Coal Enterprise Ltd., which is mentioned in the order. The House will know that BCE has worked alongside the industry to help it reskill and to place former mining employees in new work with new opportunities.
I am concerned about BCE's future, which is still in the balance. The Government have not decided specifically what they intend to do with BCE in the long term. If the Minister is able to do so, he should tell the House of his intentions.
The Government made an allocation of £3 million for retraining when the Bentley and Hatfield collieries closed. The moneys were allocated to the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the TEC spent the money in a different area of Doncaster. The areas most directly affected by the closures, which should have received the money that the Government brought forward and which should receive the money that will be made available by the order, did not receive their fair share.
The TEC is well aware of my concerns because I have talked about them to its representatives on many occasions. My latest information is that the area covered by the constituency of Doncaster, North received only a third of the £3 million that was made available.
I have corresponded with Ministers about the designation of other moneys that have been allocated to try to ease the difficulties caused by pit closures, including the economic difficulties that have been faced by Doncaster generally. Of the £8 million allocated to English Partnerships, most of the funding has been directed to projects on the other side of Doncaster from my constituency. The areas in which pits have closed, which should be receiving moneys from the order, as well as from other sources, have seen funding go elsewhere. A derelict land grant has been made available to clean up the Askern site, but the majority of the funding has been spent elsewhere. Some of the money should have been used to help areas north of Doncaster in my constituency where mines have closed and where unemployment is especially bad.
April figures show that in one ward in my constituency there is almost 18 per cent. Unemployment. Other wards have unemployment of 13 and 14 per cent. Within these wards are pockets where unemployment is as high as 20 per cent. and over. The moneys that will be made available by the order should be used to help unemployed people reskill and retrain for other work that the council is trying to bring into the town.
Against that background, the Government have cut the training-for-work budget by over £100 million for the next financial year. That is difficult to understand. By


1997, the budget will have been cut by as much as 12 per cent. That is madness when 11 per cent. of firms nationally are reporting that it is difficult to fill job vacancies. I understand that in Doncaster we have already lost 1,200 places. Indeed, more are likely to be lost. Without training, how are towns such as Doncaster expected to make the best use of the human resources that are available to them?
The Government admit that the cost to the economy of keeping someone unemployed is £9,000 a year. In Doncaster, North alone, that means that £50.5 million will be spent on subsistence for the unemployed this year. It is criminal to spend thousands of millions of pounds each year to keep people unemployed while at the same time reducing the opportunities for them to earn money for themselves in employment. The Government's approach creates a huge burden for the taxpayer instead of using Government money to encourage success. The Government should not be financing economic failure. We should be giving people a hand up, not a hand out. That is what they want and that is what they need if they are to equip themselves with the skills that they require to ensure that they get back into work.

Mr. Michael Clapham: The order gives the Department of Trade and Industry authority to fund 90 per cent. of British Coal's redundancy costs for 1995–96 and to meet the operating losses of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. for that year.
The first aim of meeting British Coal's redundancy, retraining and relocation costs that have been caused by closures is relatively unimportant because the corporation has already disposed of all its mining operations and the majority of its non-mining activities. It is welcome, however, that the order will provide for redundancy arrangements for the staff who are left with British Coal to dispose of the residual holdings.
The second aim of the order is much more important because it concerns the future of BCE. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was right to concentrate on the need for secure funding for BCE as well as on a coherent approach to regional policy. We require a fair deal for the coalfields to ensure regeneration of the areas. It is clear that the coalfield areas have not had a fair deal when we set the order in the context of the 1993 DTI White Paper, "The Prospects for Coal", which set out the measures that would be taken in coalfield areas.
We were told, for example, that Barnsley and Doncaster, as well as Mansfield, would have assisted area status. The White Paper informed us that there would be assistance from the Economic Union. We were told that there would be a concentration on infrastructure aid from English Estates. It was said that there would be assistance from the jobs service and the training and enterprise councils. It appeared that there would be set up a coalfield areas fund of £244 million. We were to have new enterprise zones, extra help for inward investment and additional assistance for BCE.
The Government's record leaves much to be desired. Despite a substantial programme since 1985, they have yet to devise a framework for coalfield regeneration. When we talk about that closure programme, it must be

borne in mind that we are talking about the closure of 140 collieries, with 160,000 men being made redundant. That has had an enormous impact.
The Government's approach contrasts starkly with that of our European partners. For example, Belgium, France and Germany have a strategy for phased closure of surplus coal capacity that is linked to a regeneration framework that empowers local communities. The French Government are contemplating the closure of the Lorraine coalfield and have set a date of 2005 for doing so. Since 1993, the French national Government, in partnership with the local region, departments and communities, have worked on a framework that will help to regenerate the community, so that as the coal mines are closed other jobs will be available.
That has not happened in any of our coalfields, and the Government introduced a package in 1993 only after a public outcry over colliery closures. One could question whether it could be described as a coherent approach. It certainly does not have the coherence that one would expect in the light of the enormous colliery closure programme since 1985.
Let us look at what we were promised, and it does relate to the grant, which is important, as it provides a little extra help. We were promised, for example, assisted area status. That has been granted, but it would have been granted to any area with unemployment that was created by the closures, so it is not as though it is extra help.
What about European Union assistance? The RECHAR programme, which has been of enormous help, was promoted not by the Government but by local authorities. Indeed, as we have seen many times, the programme has been obstructed by the Government, and only after arguments have they accepted additionality.
What about English Estates? It has made some improvement in the provision of business sites, the effect of which has been limited by the lack of a coherent strategy. The same is true of jobs and services from training and enterprise councils.
The record of the programmes supported by the coalfield fund, mainly through TECs and English Enterprise, does not support the argument that the fund was used to provide additional services. Those additional services have not been forthcoming. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what further assistance is likely to be available through the coalfield fund.
Enterprise zones were offered to the coalfields but they are still hot fully operational—they certainly were not at the beginning of this year. I understand that the enterprise zone for the Dearne valley in south Yorkshire still has not been designated, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.
It is important to consider three main aspects in relation to British Coal Enterprise. The provision of start-up finance is important for coalfield communities, because if we are to create jobs we shall do so in small and medium-sized enterprises. We must therefore concentrate on that sector.
Secondly, we must consider the provision of workspace units. Jobs will be created in smaller, growing industries within coalfield communities, so we must concentrate on them. Thirdly, we must consider the outplacing and retraining of redundant coal staff.
Those three aspects are the major part of the second aim of the grant. It is important that the Minister realises that BCE has helped in creating jobs in coalfield


communities, although there is some anxiety that it may not continue to do so. Is funding for BCE likely to continue after the order expires in 10 months' time? We do not know whether the grant will continue and, therefore, whether BCE will be able to continue.
Let us consider the situation that former mining communities face every day. My hon. Friends have already made the point that there are pockets of unemployment. In areas such as Worsbrough or Grimethorpe, as many as 40 per cent. of the male population of working age are unemployed. Poor infrastructure has resulted from a concentration on mining, with little diversification. The engineering industry that grew up around mining was very much allied to the mining industry. Consequently, as mines closed, the engineering industry also closed. Two city challenge bids have already been made to try to reverse that situation in the Dearne valley.
We need an appropriate skills base. There is a lower level of skills among some of our young people and we need to be able to lift that, which means concentrating on the appropriate skills to attract the industry that we require into coalfield communities. If we are able to offer the skills that our young people need, perhaps some of them will be able to move to work in areas such as Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester. It is important that we concentrate on the skills that are required for the future.
Environmental degradation has resulted from coal mining. The enormous problem that we face from mine water pollution has been mentioned. If I may, I shall refer to the Minister—within the context of the grant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not so long ago, he visited the Koyo factory at Dodworth in my constituency. If he had taken the time to travel one and a half miles beyond that, or if his schedule had allowed him to do so, he would have been in Silkstone, where, as he crossed the Silkstone beck, he would have noted just how polluted it is. The beck is orange. The local garden centre can no longer use the water from the beck for irrigation. Four rivers in my constituency are badly polluted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is all very interesting and no doubt correct, but I am having difficulty understanding what it has to do with the order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me.

Mr. Clapham: The point that I am making is that we require more grant to tackle some of the problems in our mining communities. We need more money for training, for business finance, to deal with contamination from polluted mine water and to develop the infrastructure.
Although Opposition Members have some reservations about the extent of the order, because of the limitation on the finance that is to be available, we shall not vote against it. We would, however, like the Minister to assure us that finance will continue after the order expires, which would allow BCE to continue.

Mr. Page: This has been an interesting debate although, I confess, it has been a little short on the substance of the order and fairly long on constituency problems. However, I see no harm in that. Part of the skill of any interested Member of Parliament is, wherever possible, to raise constituency problems. It is a matter of a battle of wits with the occupant of the Chair to see whether one can float in and out of order to convey one's message.
I had a most enjoyable visit to the Koyo bearing factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). I was most impressed by it. It is a classic and shining example of the Government's inward investment scheme, which has brought several hundred jobs to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. No doubt he will thank the Government for that significant move in the right direction.
As I said in my opening remarks, the purpose of the order is to allow the Government to continue supporting the coal industry for a further year in order to help it to adapt to changed circumstances. The main restructuring expenditures to be charged against British Coal's accounts this year will be in respect of retraining and the job creation activities of British Coal Enterprise.
I admired the way in which the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised a constituency problem. I shall not respond to it, but I shall make some inquiries and come back to him on his particular difficulty.
Nor shall I respond to the unwarranted and, I thought, unjustifiable attack by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on Mr. Lynk, who is carrying out valuable and important work for the coal communities. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be upset by the fact that Mr. Lynk is getting less money than a Member of Parliament. We all have our ways of approaching these matters.
I come now to the eulogy of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in respect of BCE, which was echoed by other Members of Parliament. I commend its valuable work. It might be churlish of me to remind hon. Members that when BCE was first created Opposition Members were rather hostile to it. However, I am quite prepared to be churlish when the occasion demands. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, hon. Members were.

Mr. Hardy: I was not.

Mr. Page: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has a way of ploughing his own furrow with distinction. However, there was not the uniform enthusiasm when BCE was first created that was apparent in the House today.
It is well to remember that, since its inception in 1984, overall net financial assistance for BCE has totalled some £167 million—roughly £100 million for economic regeneration and some £65 million for resettlement of former British Coal employees. I reassure the House, particularly the hon. Member for Wentworth, that the Government are conscious of the need to ensure best value for money from the substantial investments that BCE has already made.
Options for the future have been raised by several hon. Members. It is important to ensure access to funding to allow the activities of BCE to continue. Access to European funding will be of prime importance. However, the availability of European regional development fund grant for coal areas is not dependent on the role of BCE. Applications from those areas can come from other sources such as local authorities and a range of other regeneration bodies.
In addition to the structural funds in eligible areas, the Government secured the highest allocation of any member state from the RECHAR II initiative. That money will make an important contribution to the economic regeneration of the coalfield communities.
Contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough may wish to give the House and the nation, the Government have recognised, and do


recognise, that during the past decade BCE has made a valuable contribution in assisting the regeneration of areas affected by coal closures. The Government and British Coal continue to explore the future options for BCE. I recognise the need expressed by the hon. Member for Sherwood for an early decision and, despite the detour around terminal 5, I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Page: No, I am running out of time and I want to put these last few points on to the record.
No final decision has been made but the Government have agreed to continue to provide funding for all BCE's activities, including the workspace and business funding activities in order to allow them to continue during the current financial year.
That course of action, recommended by Mr. Neil Clarke, chairman of British Coal, will allow time for British Coal and its advisers to identify future strategies and make recommendations for meeting the needs of the coalfield communities during the longer term. Consideration is being given to the full range of options, including forms of partnership with other regeneration bodies at national and local level. All options require careful consideration before any firm decision is made, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree.
I can assure the House that I am acutely aware of the difficulties faced by many in the coalfield areas and I shall take careful account of all the points raised in coming to a decision on this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.

Pneumoconiosis

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.
The regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 2.2 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 July 1995.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind the fact that inflation is running at 3.3 per cent and that there was no review last year, does the Minister consider that that is an appropriate payment?

Miss Widdecombe: I consider it a very appropriate payment because, during the lifetime of the Act from 1980, the cumulative increase in the level of payments had reached 138.3 per cent., but the cumulative interest in the retail prices index during that time has reached 134.7 per cent. Therefore, there has been a real-terms increase. It is precisely because it was running so far ahead that there was no increase last year.
I briefly remind the House of the purpose of the Act. People suffering from industrial diseases have the right to sue the employer concerned for damages, but certain dust-related diseases take a long time to develop, and may not be diagnosed until 20 to 40 years or more after exposure. Because of that, sufferers and their dependants can experience considerable difficulty in obtaining compensation. By the time the disease is diagnosed, the employer responsible may no longer exist.
The 1979 Act set up a scheme to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the usual way through the courts. It provides lump sum payments to sufferers from certain dust-related diseases, or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants. But it has never been the intention of the Act to provide an alternative to taking civil action in the courts.
Three basic conditions of entitlement must be satisfied before a payment can be made: that there is no relevant employer who can be sued; that no court action has been brought nor compensation received in respect of the disease; and that industrial injuries disablement benefit has been awarded.
My Department does all it can to administer the Act in a sympathetic way. It is necessary to ensure that payment conditions are met, but it is also recognised that each case is an individual disaster, and the Department is therefore as generous as the legislation allows.
Since the Act came into force in 1980, more than 7,800 applicants have made a claim, and 75 per cent. of those have received payment. The total cost to date has been some £39 million. Payments under the Act are additional to any industrial injuries disablement benefit awarded.
The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review the amounts payable regularly in order to maintain their value, and the regulations aim to fulfil that commitment.
I feel sure that the House would agree that the circumstances leading to payments are very much to be regretted. They reflect the conditions under which some


people worked many years ago. Action taken by the Government to control the use of asbestos and other hazardous substances should prevent such suffering for present and future generations of workers. Nevertheless, I very much welcome the opportunity provided by the regulations to maintain the value of the compensation.
All of us will recognise that no amount of money will ever compensate individuals and families for their loss, but at least the regulations allow us to give some practical and some material help. I therefore commend the uprating of the payment scales to the House, and ask its approval to implement them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I should like to make a brief point before I call the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
I think that I have shown that my patience on some occasions knows no bounds. The draft regulations before us, as the House will appreciate, further amend the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1988 by increasing the amount of payments to persons disabled by a disease, to which the parent Act applies, by 2.2 per cent., rounded up or down to the nearest £1 as appropriate. The debate must address that particular item.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield): I am sure that your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was a general piece of advice, and not aimed in particular at my speech.
My hon. Friends and I want to relate the motion to a series of interrelated issues with a common approach and purpose, which underlines the need to recognise the terrible tragedies at work and to bring in a far wider regime of compensation and prevention. During my short speech, I shall deal with those issues and how they relate to the regulations.
For the Minister to give an impression that the proposed payments are anything other than paltry is a disgrace—indeed, it is disingenuous. The Government do not intend an annual uprating of this benefit. If the benefit were uprated in line with inflation, the Government would have proposed an uprating of around 5.75 per cent. They are, of course, offering an uprating of 2.2 per cent. In real terms, that represents not an increase but a decrease over the past few years. The Minister has no justification for such a mean-fisted approach.
My hon. Friends and I will also refer to the Government's hostility in a range of areas toward injured workers—

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. I enjoy having a discussion with her. I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions which—perhaps—she can answer when she intervenes.
The coal industry scheme is not directly affected by the amendment; however, there are a number of issues with which the Minister could assist in the context of the draft regulations.
When was the last uprating of the coal miners' pneumoconiosis scheme? When will the Government bring forward regulations to uprate it, even if it is in line with the uprating of the regulations before us? The coal industry pneumoconiosis regulations allow for the

opportunity for reassessment, ensuring that, if there is a deterioration as a direct result of the prescribed illness, levels of compensation may be adjusted accordingly. As I understand the regulations, however, no such facility exists for non-coal mining employees.
Under the amended pneumoconiosis regulations before the House, a 50-year-old who is assessed as 10 per cent. disabled is entitled to £10,888 as a full and final settlement. If the pneumoconiosis is diagnosed three years on, however, by which time the sufferer may be 50 per cent. disabled—that is a reasonable assumption, given the cohort of cases about which we already know—his disability will entitle him to £30,006. That is a hypothetical example, but such cases occur all the time.
Entitlement for a disabled person and his or her dependants could vary by as much as £19,118 or even more, simply because of the timing of the diagnosis. That is ridiculous and inequitable. Will the Minister bring forward proposals to allow for reassessment when we next discuss the regulations?

Miss Widdecombe: I am intervening on the hon. Gentleman on the point that he was making when I tried initially to intervene. He said—I heard him quite distinctly—that we have not maintained the value of the compensation over the past three years. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in April 1991, the increase in the compensation was 9 per cent. against a retail prices index of 8.2 per cent., that the following year it was increased by 5 per cent. against an RPI of 4 per cent., and that the following year it rose by 2.5 per cent. in comparison to an RPI of 1.7 percent.?
That is why there was no increase last year. This increase therefore maintains the value of the compensation against inflation. Over the three years that he quoted, we have increased compensation above the rate of inflation.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady is being disingenuous, and I shall explain why. Dust-related diseases, by their very nature, do not always become apparent straight away. Many cases, therefore, under the regulations, are new cases or potential new cases. For the people affected, the regulations do not represent an uprating, which is why I presented the proposed uprating in the context of the past three years. Many people whose illnesses relate to 1979 or 1980 have since died. We are trying to calculate a benefit not for the deceased, but for the living. In that respect, the hon. Lady is wrong and we are right.
The overwhelming bulk of benefit recipients under the pneumoconiosis regulations are former asbestos workers. Deaths from asbestos-related cancers are expected to triple over the next 30 years. Despite the strict controls that govern the use of asbestos today, disease rates will continue to rise because of the long incubation period for such cancers.
Asbestos-related diseases already kill more than 3,000 people a year in the United Kingdom. In Clydeside, Merseyside, Tyneside, Wales, the midlands and every region of the country, there is a time bomb of dust-related diseases. The cancers are the most deadly known. There is no possibility of survival in the medium or long term. Asbestosis causes the most appalling deaths. Dust-related diseases are painful and debilitating.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who, with hon. Members of all Opposition parties, has conducted a


campaign on behalf of the sufferers of asbestosis and those who care for them. That campaign has been not only about the recognition of the disease and the necessity to uprate benefits, but about the consequences of the Government's notorious compensation recovery unit.
How can the Minister say dispassionately that the Government are concerned to ensure that the sufferers of asbestos are compensated throughout their lives? This year alone, the Government are taking almost £1 million away from sufferers of asbestosis through the compensation recovery unit. They are the same Government who, in a matter of minutes, are able to give R. J. Budge a £1 million sweetener to take over the British coal industry.
It beggars belief that, having recognised the nature of the disease and the need to provide compensation, the Government claw back through the compensation recovery unit compensation provided by employers. As I said, £1 million has been clawed back this year, and more will follow. Even at the point of death, when settlements are made, the Government attempt to claw back money from the mourning dependants. It is a scandal, and the Government are attacking those who have been injured at work. It is about time that they gave a commitment to end the notorious activities of the compensation recovery unit. In one instance, £84,000 was recovered from a sufferer by the compensation recovery unit, but the Government still say that they are concerned about the economic well-being of asbestosis sufferers.
The same double standards apply to the Government's approach to prevention. The Minister said that the Government were interested in work to prevent others from suffering such terrible diseases, but, under this Government, the number of visits of inspection of relevant companies and activities has dropped. The number of inspections of asbestos removal companies has declined from 2,709 in 1985 to just 805 in 1994. In other words, the number of visits has dropped by two thirds in only a decade, despite the evidence of an increase in asbestosis caused by industrial injury, and years of neglect by Government and industry.
A number of my colleagues want to speak, so I shall move on to an issue that is causing grave concern to mining communities across the country—how the Government effectively operate the regulations. On the one hand, the Government give the impression that the regulations benefit sufferers of pneumoconiosis, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, but, on the other, the application of the regulations means that a substantial number of sufferers of industrial disease have no access to any benefits.
In my constituency, 90 per cent. of miners with chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been denied access to any benefits. It is a matter of urgency that the Government consider why the application of the regulations should lead to such a lack of access to benefits for the most vulnerable disabled people.
If the Government are serious about their responsibilities to tens of thousands of people who, because of their environmental and working conditions, suffer a life of disability, they will take steps to alter the operation of the recovery unit and amend the emphysema and chronic bronchitis regulations. They will also take steps to ensure that pneumoconiosis benefit is genuinely uprated, not as the Minister suggests.
I now give the views of three of my constituents who suffer daily because of Government's callous pneumoconiosis regulations. One states:
I had to take early retirement because of this disease. I spent the majority of my life mining coal underground, and destroyed my health as a result, but the personal cost of my contribution is being denied.
Another told me:
I've never smoked and don't drink, and just can't comprehend how the agency can distance my illness from my occupation—I feel sickened by the falseness of the Government's 'concern'.
A third said:
I am severely disabled through my employment, diagnosed long ago as a sufferer of chronic bronchitis. I'm angry that the Government gave the introduction of this benefit such high profile to show the recognition of miners sacrifice, knowing that so few of us would actually qualify for the benefit because of the severity of the criteria. It's all been a sham.
The regulations fail to meet the challenges created by occupational chronic ill-health. The meagre 2.2 per cent. award pales into oblivion when compared with the sums handed by the Tories under privatisation to their friends and supporters in the City. The Minister should be more generous to sufferers of chronic bronchitis, asbestosis and related diseases. If the Government were as generous to them as they are to their friends in the City, we should not have to complain today.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I shall not detain the House long, but I wish to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said about staged payments, which do not appear to be part of the scheme. They are included in the coal miners' pneumoconiosis scheme, under which, if a sufferer is reassessed and deemed to have a higher percentage of industrial disability, he is awarded a further payment to compensate for the increase in his disablement.
I am currently dealing with the case of a constituent—a coal miner—who suffered for a number of years, although he was never diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis. Whenever he applied and was X-rayed, he joined the high failure—or refusal—rate referred to by my hon. Friend. When my constituent died, the post mortem revealed that he was suffering from pneumoconiosis. As the Minister knows, pneumoconiosis can be diagnosed definitely only on death, when a biopsy can show the condition of the lung section.
The post mortem found that the chap had been suffering from pneumoconiosis since 1982, but under the terms of the scheme applicable to him—which I understand are to be replicated in this scheme—he qualified only for the rate of compensation applicable at the level of disablement that he suffered in 1982 and for the increased payments from that time as his percentage of disablement increased, based on an estimate made by the pneumoconiosis medical panel.
Although that man had suffered desperately for the final 13 years of his life, he received no compensation. On his death, an artificially low payment was made. It was artificially low because it was based on the initial assessment of a 10 per cent. disability as at 1982 and, sadly, the increased payments are only £200. I believe that, under the coal miners pneumoconiosis scheme, those payments should be increased and included in the scheme


to which I have referred. There is a case to be made for the increases in assessments to be reflected in increased compensation.
I referred to the difficulty of diagnosis. In the cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the failure rate is 90 per cent. The rate in respect of pneumoconiosis is also high, but not 90 per cent. The two rates are linked because one of the requirements for claiming compensation for chronic bronchitis is that a coal miner has to have evidence of pneumoconiosis in his X-ray. The X-ray evidence has caused difficulties for years.
We are now reaching the stage at which the Government must consider the X-ray qualification, and either instruct the adjudicating bodies to have soft exposure X-rays, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) will probably mention, undertaken in all cases of assessment for pneumoconiosis, or relax the qualification rules so that the judgment of the medical practitioner is accepted in place of the arbitrary X-ray and the forced expiratory velocity test of one litre.
We should have a system whereby diagnosis is based on medical opinion, which would probably have avoided some of the suffering inflicted on my constituent, who suffered from pneumoconiosis for 13 years but received no compensation, and whose widow will receive only a very small sum.
The failure rate in diagnosing pneumoconiosis, chronic bronchitis and emphysema makes a mockery of the suggestion that the scheme, the 2.2 per cent. increase now, or the 138 per cent. increase over the past few years are or have been generous. Any percentage increase does not matter very much if people cannot qualify for compensation in the first place.
I sat on the Committee that dealt with the legislation to introduce the compensation recovery unit and increased recovery from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. of any benefit. It is diabolical to recoup 100 per cent. Beveridge, and the 1947 and 1948 legislation, did not intend that to be the case. It was always taken as 50:50 between the employer and the employee, in view of the national insurance contribution of both sides. The recovery rate should not have been increased.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: First, I welcome the opportunity of having a debate on this important subject today. I have the honour to represent a constituency in north Wales in which there are several working slate quarries, and the subject is of great importance to many hundreds of my constituents. I welcome the opportunity to remind the House that it was continued pressure from my party which brought in the legislation on the matter in 1979. That is a fact of which I am proud.
As at December last year, total expenditure under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 amounted to about £38.1 million, with some 5,700 people receiving payments under the Act. Those facts are worthy of acknowledgement, but it must be said that the current system is failing as many people as it is assisting. Perhaps the system itself could best be described as rough justice.
The principle in compensation law is encapsulated in the Latin maxim "restitutio in integrum". One can never put a person suffering from pneumoconiosis, emphysema

or chronic bronchitis back to where he should be. That is as plain as a pikestaff. The legislation was introduced to make the lives of sufferers less of a misery than they currently are. I am afraid that the Government are failing in their duty.
In saying that the system is failing those in need, I refer first to the scale that is applied to applicants seeking compensation. The scale is devoid of flexibility, and an assessment of 10 per cent. disability—that is all too common—for a 40-year-old is as little as £8,742. If that person dies at the age of 60, the amount is lowered to £2,107.
When an assessment of 10 per cent. has been made, it remains at that level, despite the fact that a person's health fails with the onset of old age. Should there not be a statutory form of periodical review—say, every five years at the upper limit—so that these poor people are tested automatically? That would be fair, and the present process does not deliver a just result.
That brings me to my second point. Pneumoconiosis is often linked to other diseases, such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. To a layman like myself, it is matter of inescapable common sense that there is a direct link between slate dust and other respiratory diseases, such as those I have mentioned. Alas, common sense makes little headway with the Government.
In 1992, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommended that chronic bronchitis and emphysema in underground coal miners should be added to the prescribed list of compensatable diseases. The council looked carefully for evidence of a link between pneumoconiosis and the other two diseases, and evidence showed that air-flow limitation in coal miners who had experienced heavy exposure to coal dust was more likely than not to have been caused by their work. That is an obvious point, which we would all accept. On that basis, the council therefore recommended that those two diseases should be prescribed under the scheme and should become compensatory diseases.
I plead on behalf of slate quarrymen that that same qualification should be applied for them. There is no basis in logic or common sense for that not to occur. There is abundant evidence of a causal link, and it only needs collating evidence. It behoves any responsible Government to initiate a full epidemiological survey.
At present, the collection of data is haphazard in the extreme. People may have their cases referred by the odd GP who takes an interest, or even by an employer—although I doubt whether many employers would volunteer the information. People are being let down, and the Government should understand that. I call on the Government to tackle the issue, and to do so without further delay. Delay—as has been said—is very often fatal for people suffering from these debilitating and horrible diseases. The Government must do something about that.
Clearly the uprating is welcome, but only as far as it goes. It has been more than two years since the last uprating, and I have had discussions with the Minister about that. With respect to her, I do not accept what she says. Even if there have been over-generous payments in years gone by, that does not justify making cuts now. We are dealing with people who can hardly move and hardly breathe, and who are in a living hell. The Minister can say that the Government will cut the scheme by 1 or 2 per cent., and that they will not give an extra pound here and there. That is obscene.


I do not accept the Government's figures, either. In the past two years, the retail prices index has gone up by 5.75 per cent. while a 2.2 per cent. uprating has been offered. Since April 1989, the upratings have amounted to 37 per cent., while price increases have amounted to 33 per cent. There has been a 4 per cent. differential in the figures since 1989. That does not justify cutting back or offering a less generous settlement. I will not dwell on that point, as I am not going to agree with the Minister on it.
I do not accept the reasoning behind the Minister's statement, and the inescapable conclusion is that these people are being sold short by the Government. I therefore urge the Government to consider a far more generous uprating for next year, and to introduce a detailed study to extend the diseases referred to and have them listed as compensatable diseases.
In conclusion—and constrained by your initial warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I should like to mention one brief matter. I draw the attention of the House to an iniquitous situation regarding how the social security regulations cover compensation for coal dust victims.
It is ludicrous, if not obscene, to confine payments to those who have worked for at least 20 years underground and who pass the threshold test of having the use of only one third of one lung. That is an obscenity, but it is the law. I call on the Government to publish the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council review of disablement benefit, and for a speedy rectification of the issue.
The Minister is a reasonable person, and I ask her to consider the matters that I have raised tonight. They are important to many thousands of people in Britain, and many hundreds in my constituency, who are suffering. They are good, hard-working people who have worked all their lives. They deserve better than this.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I thank the Minister for bringing the matter to the House, although I am disappointed that we are debating it at the very end of term. There are few Members in the House, and it is a reflection on both the people suffering from these diseases and on the mining industry that these two motions have been tagged on at the very end.
I represent many people who suffer from pneumoconiosis, and many others who are applying for benefit as suffering from emphysema or bronchitis. In the job I had before entering the House, I dealt with the problems related to those diseases. I appeal to the Minister to allow such people the dignity, and the financial dignity, of having this benefit. We cannot restore the health of those suffering a tortuous illness. They face a long and lingering illness before they die, and they look at it on a living death.
We are asking for compassion, and I hope that the Minister takes on board some of the comments made by previous speakers, and by me. In the past, people have been dismissed because they did not have sufficient fibrosis of the lung to qualify for benefit as suffering from pneumoconiosis. The argument was that they had chronic bronchitis and emphysema. When those same individuals have applied under the new scheme, they have been turned down. Some had to leave the industry because they were disabled by the combined diseases. An academic

medical argument then went on. It is not an exact science. As someone said, the only exact science is when a post mortem takes place, and it is horrendous that, to qualify for a widow's pension, a widow should have to allow a post mortem on her husband. All I am asking is for the cases to be reassessed.
Had I drawn a number in the ballot on first coming to the House, my private Member's Bill would have put emphysema and chronic bronchitis on the agenda immediately. I was over the moon that the Government were going to give us this breakthrough, but in Scotland only 5 per cent. of the people who apply qualify—there are so many disqualifications.
Some of those who were disqualified have since died. Many families are appealing posthumously, but I think that we are wasting our time. Many other people do not apply at all. They say, "Why should we? It seems to be a waste of time." Many others do not appeal when they get their first knock back.
As an ex-miner, I have many friends and relations who are suffering from these diseases. Although mining is no longer a great industry, a great army of people in the mining communities, as well as many people in other industries, are suffering from these diseases. There are also many other industrial diseases.
As a nation, we seem to be in a backwater when it comes to industrial medicine. Analysing industrial processes and continually assessing people in employment are not a priority for this nation. I do not know why, but I know that that is happening in other nations.
I am using this short speech to make a plea for the Government to reconsider the qualifying periods. I agree with my colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is on the Front Bench, about the 2.2 per cent. increase, which is disappointing. I also laughed when I read the words:
rounded up or down to the nearest £1 as appropriate.
That sounds like the old negotiating tactics, when we were on piece-rate earnings in the pit. We always found that it was appropriate for the management, but never for the people whom I represented. I hope that that is not the case on this occasion.
Putting that anomaly to one side, it has to be said that 2.2 per cent. is not a great deal of money—nor is the total amount—but it makes a difference. The ex-miners and their families are worried not about the diagnosis, but about qualifying for the pensions concerned. That is the main thing. They know that the person is ill. They do not know why and cannot make a diagnosis—that is up to the medical people—and it is academic to them, but they want to make life a bit more comfortable and tolerable for themselves because they have to give constant care.
I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously. Yesterday's Hansard contains a written answer giving the statistics for people with emphysema or bronchitis who have claimed during the past two years. It is a damning indictment of the scheme. I hope that the Government will reassess the qualifications necessary. I cannot emphasise that enough, as it is so important to my constituents and to other people throughout the country.

Mr. Michael Clapham: As the Minister said, the regulation applies


generally to people who are outside the mining industry. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conway (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned slate quarrying, for example.
However, there will be circumstances in which the regulation applies to mining. If a private mine owner who has taken out employer's liability insurance for a small colliery, for example in Wales, goes out of business, he will have to be traced at some later date, to find out whether claims can be pursued through his insurance. If not, the case would be decided under this regulation.
I want to explore with the Minister the interrelationship between the regulation and the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. There is a relationship by virtue of the fact that only when the previous employer cannot be traced, or there is no insurance, can someone be paid under the regulation. The intention of the 1969 Act was that every employer in the United Kingdom would ensure that all his employees were insured. There would have been notable exceptions—for example, the utilities and British Coal—for which the Government would have underwritten the insurance.
The 1969 Act provided for inspectors to visit works to ensure that the certificate of insurance is displayed in a prominent place and that all the employees are aware that the employer has taken it out. Obviously, that does not always happen and people are not informed of what the certificate means. The idea was to protect employees by requiring the certificate to be placed in a prominent position in the workplace, but that does not always give employees the sort of protection that was envisaged when the Act was introduced.
I have discussed the situation with lawyers who deal with common law damages and I am told that they are experiencing extreme difficulties, especially as they are looking back to 1969 and beyond with asbestosis cases. One of the difficulties seems to have come about because there is no requirement that details of the insurance certificate should be deposited in a central office. Consequently, even when employers are traced, they cannot always remember whether they were insured, or the name of the insurer.
Perhaps the legislation could be amended to require employers to register details of such insurances in a central office, so that they would be available to the public for scrutiny. That would certainly help and I hope that the Minister will take the suggestion on board.
It is not merely a question of forgetting the name of the insurance company. If a company has gone into liquidation, it is almost impossible to trace the insurer, especially if we are talking about looking back more than 20 years. Even when an employer has complied with his obligations under the Act, one is not always able to trace the insurance. That means that we perhaps need to go beyond a central office for depositing details of certificates. It seems eminently sensible to consider the possibility of amending the legislation to require every employer, whether a company by incorporation, a partnership or an individual, to file an insurance return at a central point each year when the insurance is taken out.
There should be a central register, which, as I said, should be open to the public to scrutinise. The issue may become more important as we move into the next century because, as the Minister knows, some reports, especially that in The Lancet, which was drawn up by statisticians employed by the Health and Safety Executive, show that by 2020 there are likely to be 3,000 deaths per year

through asbestosis. The number of claims that will be pursued is likely to be in excess of the current number. It is therefore pressing to consider the idea of a central office where details of insurers and insurance premiums can be registered.
I am also told that there are certain other problems. Lawyers tell me that even if an employer can be traced, there are ways in which it can get round its responsibility. For example, in some circumstances, the employer will refuse to pass on a letter of claim to the insurer. The employer may hang on to the letter until such time as the insurer is not prepared to accept the claim. We could get around that problem by imposing a duty on employers to ensure that when they receive a letter of claim in cases of asbestosis, pneumoconiosis and byssinosis, it is passed on to the insurer.
I would suggest to the Minister that that principle is already established because sections 51 and 52 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 specifically provide that once an insurer has given insurance, it must meet its obligation even if a thief were driving the car. There is insurance cover even when there is an accident involving a stolen car that is being driven by the person who has stolen it. It is only one short step to relate that argument to the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and consequently to these regulations. Payments would be made from insurance premiums rather having to be made by the taxpayer.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right, but there is one critical fact that he may want to put to the Minister. Under the regulations that govern the compensation recovery unit, insurers are 100 per cent. non-liable. They know that they need only offer a payment that is less than the cost of benefits already paid and that the state cannot recover that money from them. Therefore, not only do people lose access to benefits to which they are rightly entitled because of their industrial injuries, but the state ends up paying everything and insurers walk away having paid nothing. The compensation recovery unit is a scandal because of the damage and harm done to people by employers and because the insurance companies are being subsidised by the Government's proposals, which take benefits off recipients and do not take anything from the insurance companies.

Mr. Clapham: I take my hon. Friend's point, which has already been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). It is a scandal that the recovery unit takes back every penny. The Minister will be aware that the 1948 legislation set the principle that national insurance contributions were paid 50 per cent. by the employer and 50 per cent. by the employee. That was always an accepted principle up to 1980s under common law in cases of assessing disablement and deductions from disablement assessments. It certainly appears to be a scandal. I hope that the Minister would be prepared to agree that the deduction should be no more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Illsley: From working on personal injury compensation claims, my hon. Friend and I know the whole history of the compensation recovery unit and the clawback. The compensation recovery unit gave the green light to the insurance companies because it meant that solicitors had to advise clients to accept minimal claims to avoid a substantial recovery by the CRU. The insurance companies got away with murder because they were


paying minimal payments and avoided massive compensation payments where a clawback was involved. It was an insurance companies' charter.

Mr. Clapham: I take my hon. Friend's point. The Minister should realise from my hon. Friend's intervention that there must be some changes, and not only the change that I suggested for a central office for depositing details of insurance certificates. Unless we start to look at reducing the amount that the CRU takes back, all that will happen as we move into the next century is that employers that want to be helpful to their employees will disappear. There will be no trace that they were in business. Unless the insurance certificates have been deposited, there will be little chance of tracing them. Employers may even find ways around depositing their insurance certificates to help their employees. The 100 per cent. recovery of payments made becomes self-defeating.
I think that the Minister has taken on board the principle that we should have a central office where insurance details should be deposited. That would certainly help and, as I said, that principle is already established. Only when such safeguards are in being will working people feel safe in the knowledge that there is proper insurance protection.

Miss Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate and many hon. Members have spoken movingly of their constituents, and others, who suffer from these diseases. Indeed, I think it would be a shared view that it is quite impossible to overestimate the degree of suffering that people go through. As I said in my opening speech, it is not possible to compensate sufferers or their dependants for loss of health and, ultimately, loss of life.
Various points of detail were raised in the debate and, in particular, I would like, in reverse order, to reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who raised several points about the problems of enforcing employers' liabilities.
You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not an expert on the Road Traffic Act 1988. I cannot therefore comment one way or the other on the principle that has allegedly been established. I can say that the Government are aware of both of the main issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The first issue is simply that of the disappearance of records of with whom the insurance was held and the second is that of employers not putting in claims to their insurers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are currently reviewing the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and that we are consulting interested parties on possible changes to the legislation. I cannot speculate on the outcome of that review, but I can say that the consultation document was issued in April and that comments should be received by the end of July. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to enlarge on any of his comments which, incidentally, I shall ensure that I take into account, I should be interested to receive details either by way of a meeting or in writing.
The specific issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised—records of insurance and the problem of employers having insurance, but not putting in claims—

have both formed part of the consultation, and we have sought views on them. I am genuinely grateful to him for bringing these issues out in parliamentary debate because they are extremely important.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) also made a moving contribution to the debate. I am rather sad that he suggested that we tagged this debate on at the end of the Session, thus revealing that we did not consider it to be important. Once the decision on uprating was taken, we believed that it was important to avoid any further delay and we thought that it was important to have this debate before the House rose. For that reason, the debate was scheduled for today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that point as made in good faith. The debate was not tagged on at the end because it was considered to be unimportant.
Several speakers raised the issue of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—I am sure that I have not pronounced the constituency properly—mentioned slate quarry workers. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is an independent statutory body. It advises the Secretary of State on matters that relate to the industrial injuries scheme and it keeps developments in occupational diseases under review. The major part of its time is spent in considering whether the list of prescribed diseases for which industrial injuries disablement benefit may be paid should be enlarged or amended. The council will recommend a disease for prescription only when it considers that there is sufficient scientific evidence to establish the link between the disease and the occupation. In the case of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the council is satisfied that the link exists for coal miners who have worked underground for 20 years and who satisfy certain medical criteria. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point that the criteria are strict, but I point out that that is the council's scientific view.
The council also believes that it has not received sufficient scientific evidence to suggest that bronchitis and emphysema should be recommended for prescription in relation to slate quarry workers. I can only suggest to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that if he is aware of such evidence, he should ensure that it is presented, regularly updated and re-presented to the council so that it can take his views into account. The council is an independent statutory body and we follow its advice.
The hon. Members for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) commented on reassessment, which is available under the British Coal scheme, and on allowance for changes in the nature of the disability or the disease. Payments are weighted—I have an extremely complex table with which I shall not weary the House—to take account of the risk of deterioration and that is built into the scheme. On more than one occasion, the question was raised of why benefits should be recovered from compensation payments.

Mr. McCartney: When the regulation was debated two years ago in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) raised the point about someone dying before the benefit proposal was approved. In such a case, the consequent award is reduced by half; there is a 50 per cent. cut on the basis of death. At the time, we asked the Department to reconsider the proposal as the compensation related to loss of earnings


and other matters. We felt that the reduction was unfair. Has the Minister considered the matter and, if so, what decision has she come to?

Miss Widdecombe: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether the principle of reduction to take account of death when compensation is paid to dependants is wrong in itself and whether it should be the same as that paid to sufferers or whether he was relating his intervention to my point and talking about a change in the nature of the severity.

Mr. McCartney: I am making a different point. The Minister talked about weighting. We disagree with her comments because the regulations dealing with pneumoconiosis in miners are different and there is an assessment procedure. There is a recognition in law of deterioration and that should apply here. Why is it that there is a reduction in compensation on death? There seems no validity in law for that. Has the Department considered the matter since the previous discussion and if so, what was its view?

Miss Widdecombe: I refer the hon. Gentleman back even further to the origins of the regulations, which I always carry round with me, and to the debate in December 1979 when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, discussed why the regulations were structured so that there should be a difference between dependants and sufferers. He referred to the pattern that had already been established under the National Coal Board scheme and he pointed out that the regulations followed that pattern exactly. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, which was passed by a Labour Government, made a clear distinction between categories. We followed a long-established, recognised difference between the two.
More than one speaker challenged me to say why benefit payments were recovered from compensation. The Government have long held the view that negligent employers and other compensators should not have their liabilities met through the social security system and that victims should not be compensated twice for the same incident. Those tenets led to the formation of the compensation recovery unit. The principle is, therefore, well established. In a former incarnation in the Department of Social Security, I took part in various debates on the underlying principles and I do not think that I can add much to my comments then.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I would like to make some progress. I have tried to address the various points raised and I am aware that time is a little pressing—

Mr. McCartney: I have nowhere to go.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman may not have anywhere to go. I suspect that others, including some of his colleagues, may.
There has been some discussion about the failure rate of claims. I believe that a system that pays out on 75 per cent. of claims does not raise the spectre of an unduly high failure rate. The only point on which I shall seek leave not to respond but to write—

Mr. Illsley: What about pneumoconiosis?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall disregard that intervention because it was a sedentary one. The one point on which I shall write further is the one raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central, who has somewhere to go—[HON MEMBERS: "He is here."] So he is. He raised the point about the quality of X-rays and about the adequacy of X-rays to be a determining factor. I shall respond on that matter in due course.
I have tried to answer the major points raised in this debate, although I could not answer the entire rant of the hon. Member for Makerfield. It has been a sensible and sensitive debate, and I commend the Order to the House.
Resolved,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions of the Official Receiver) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

ENERGY POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4523/95, relating to European Union energy policy, and supports the Government's view that, while welcoming the consultation process, the Community should focus its efforts on completing the single market.

COTTON REGIME

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5489/95, relating to reform of the cotton regime; and supports the Government in its intention to continue to press for a rigorous reform of the cotton regime and, in particular, to reduce the level of subsidisation and to tackle fraud.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Crime in Ribble Valley

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject this evening, especially as it is still daylight. I trust that it will still be daylight when we finish the debate.
The last Adjournment debate that I had just before a recess was on organ donors and I was asking for a computer so that all that information could be held centrally. I was delighted when, 12 months later, I was successful in gaining that central register, so the nation will be holding its breath to see what I shall ask for this time. I have no doubt that, within a short time, the Government will deliver.
The subject of tonight's debate, "Crime in Ribble Valley", sounds like an Agatha Christie novel such as "Murder She Wrote", "Death of the Tickled Trout" or "Whodunit at Gisburn". Although the debate's title suggests that Ribble Valley is riddled with crime, that is not the case. We do not have an appalling crime rate and we want to keep it that way.
May I start by describing Ribble Valley to put it in context? Just because that beautiful rural area does not suffer from as much crime as other areas, it does not mean that we should be forgotten. It is a personal tragedy for anyone who suffers crime and we should see what we can do to eradicate even the small amount of crime that exists within Ribble valley. My hon. Friend the Minister will know the area well as it is not far from his constituency. My constituency consists of a number of beautiful villages; Clitheroe, which is a larger area; and Fullwood, which is the urban side of Preston. So it has a mix of urban and rural areas. The Ordnance Survey people who make maps tell me that Ribble Valley is at the centre of the United Kingdom. Much is said about middle England these days; if one wants to know what the people of middle United Kingdom think, one need go no further than my constituency.
Since I have been a Member of Parliament I have held three public meetings on law and order, which have all been well attended. People have been vociferous on law and order, not just because they have been victims or know others who have been victims of crime but because they hold strong views on law and order in the United Kingdom generally and want to help eradicate crime throughout the country. The perception is that crime is more widespread than it is, but that does not mean that people should not be worried. Just because news bulletins are not riddled with stories of shootings in Ribble Valley, it does not mean that we should not be concerned about crime there. There is a great community spirit within Ribble Valley which I wish could be extended to some other parts of the country.
I recently sent out a number of surveys on law and order and I have some of the forms with me today. People want to become involved and make suggestions to the Government, and I shall pass the pile of forms to my hon. Friend the Minister, who will be anxious to read the suggestions made on them and see what further measures the Government could take. He may be interested to know that I asked a specific question on identity cards, on which

an announcement was made yesterday. I found that 87 per cent. of those who responded want the introduction of some form of identity card because they believe that it will help to crack down on fraud and crime, and I therefore support their call.
I recently had a chat with Alistair Lyons, chief executive of National and Provincial, which issues its own credit and cheque cards. It gives people the option of having their photograph on the front and etched signature on the back. The vast majority of people with National and Provincial cards now choose to have their photograph on them. I applaud National and Provincial for that initiative. It does not charge people for the card, unlike many credit card companies, which take none of those preventive measures. I call on the banks and all card-issuing companies to take that step and allow people to have their photographs and laser-etched signatures on cards. They could all do a little more to contribute towards combating crime.
Those who responded to my survey also believe that identity cards could be used to prevent social security fraud, which has been estimated at about £1 billion. People who pick up cheques at the post office or sign on should have some form of identification to prove who they are. If identity cards would help us to cut down on such fraud, we should take that step. They would also be useful to youngsters who need to prove their age. A card with the young person's photograph, signature and age would mean that off licences, pubs and clubs would no longer have the excuse that the young person looked 18 whereas he or she was only 14 or 13. When I was 20, I was still being refused the purchase of drink in Swansea because I looked so young. An identity card would have proved that I was older than I looked, which would have come in handy for me. So identity cards would be multi-faceted and beneficial in many ways.

Dr. Robert Spink: I congratulate my hon. Friend on distributing the Viewfinder Survey, which I see on the Bench before me and which he will pass on to the Minister. In the survey, he asks his constituents a number of questions including whether they favour the introduction of a national identity card. The form that I have picked up says "Yes". Will my hon. Friend let us know at some stage—he may not have analysed the forms yet—how many of his constituents favour the introduction of a national identity card?

Mr. Evans: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend, who is interested in law and order issues and has spoken in the House many times on measures that would help to tackle crime, that a staggering 87 per cent. of people in Ribble Valley want identity cards. All the cries from Liberty that identity cards would be a terrible invasion of people's privacy are nonsense. It is an invasion of people's privacy when their houses are broken into, their cars are wrecked and money is stolen from the taxpayer. We should take that relatively simple measure to combat such crimes.
Yesterday I spoke at length with police officers in Clitheroe about burglary and theft, particularly in the villages in my constituency. Sergeant Kirk told me that the vast majority of such crimes are committed by people from outside Ribble Valley. As a result of the Government's continuing investment in the roads programme, we now have a good infrastructure with the M6, the M61 and other motorways. But it means that criminals can come to the area from Manchester,


Liverpool or other urban areas, perpetrate their crimes, put the goods into the back of their vans and disappear down the M6 before we know where we are. We are victims of commuter crime. One of the police officers said that, if only we could build a wall around Ribble Valley, crime would be reduced by 80 per cent. I do not suggest that we build a wall around Ribble Valley, but that shows the sort of problems faced by rural areas.
When I first moved into Ribble Valley I lived in a beautiful village called Downham. It is a relatively small village owned by Lord Clitheroe and it has barely altered throughout the years. "Whistle Down the Wind" was filmed there. Having come from Swansea, I found it remarkable that people knew that I was coming before I arrived. They know when people get up, when they go bed and who has called at houses. They know everything about the village because they take an interest in the community. That type of community spirit is absolutely wonderful.
Such community spirit also helps community policing, because policemen know people who live in the village. They recognise strangers and note those who look suspicious. They are therefore able to go up to such people and ask one or two questions. In many cases that alerts would-be criminals that Ribble Valley is not the place for them.
I was told yesterday how the police went to another beautiful village in my constituency, Sawley, and saw a vehicle that looked a bit suspicious. They had a chat with the people in it and it was not long before it had turned round and was on its way back down to the M6. Such community policing plays a valuable role when combined with the efforts of people who live in the community. We can all benefit from that partnership.
Much of the crime committed in my constituency and indigenous to it is the type of crime about which we all get upset—mindless vandalism, graffiti, broken windows and damage to cars. That is not the stuff of Agatha Christie novels, but it upsets locals, especially shop owners, who find that their windows are put through for no good reason. It is not as though all the shops that are vandalised sell jewellery—most of them use shutters—but even fruit shops are attacked. One could hardly believe that people would throw bricks through windows to steal fruit. We want to eradicate such mindless vandalism.
A camera shop, which stocked a lot of valuable products and had spent a lot of money on reinforced plate windows, was also subject to mindless vandalism. It was open just one day when someone took the trouble to try several times to break the windows. Those attempts left deep marks on the windows and the owner of that shop had to get them replaced.
Shops in my village, Longridge, have suffered from huge amounts of graffiti and traders are fed up with it all. One would think that some parents would ask where their children had been at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. After all, we are not just talking about 18 or 19-year-olds, because some of the youngsters who perpetrate that crime are a lot younger.
I thank the Government for the £28,500 grant they have given to Clitheroe for the closed circuit television scheme. That grant is wonderful news. I know that my hon. Friend will be interested to learn that that scheme will be operational from next month. Those cameras will help to reduce the mindless vandalism, graffiti and damage to cars that occurs in town centres. The scheme will be a

success, so why can we not extend it to some of the neighbouring villages? I know that Longridge has applied for cameras to be installed and it would be wonderful if that application was agreed because it would help the police to eradicate mindless crime committed there. I am 100 per cent. in favour of the CCTV scheme and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider some of the applications for its installation in rural areas in particular, which would help the police. I was also pleased to learn that, instead of sticking trained police in front of CCTV screens, civilians will monitor them. Those civilians will help the trained police to catch the criminals.
Lancashire police have also taken delivery of a helicopter and Ribble Valley has benefited from that. That may seem far-fetched, but, this morning, Superintendent Clarke of Fulwood police station listed a catalogue of incidents where the helicopter has been used. It has been particularly useful at night when the use of thermal imaging equipment means that the crew of the helicopter have been able to give directions to the police on the ground to catch criminals. That is absolutely amazing. I was sceptical when I first heard that Lancashire police intended to buy a helicopter because I thought that £1 million could buy a lot of other equipment. It has already been used to good effect, however, and even the police on the beat are using their walkie-talkies so that they can get in touch with their station and request helicopter assistance. That helicopter can get to the scene in no time at all. That saves a lot of police time because several vehicles from all over the place do not have to chase the criminals. Quite a few criminals have been caught as a result of helicopter assistance.
My hon. Friend will know that I warmly supported the introduction of the side-handled baton, which has also been used to good effect recently in Ribble Valley, when a number of people spilled out of a pub at the same time and a fight broke out. The Clitheroe police were able to call in a special team which has been trained in the use of side-handled batons and within a short time that crowd had been dispersed. It would not have been possible had those officers been using the old truncheons. I am delighted that the police are already using the new batons. I know that trials are being conducted on the use of CS gas and, should they prove successful, I would support its use by the police.

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that about two weeks ago the police voted 4:1 against being routinely armed? Does he welcome that decision? Does he think that we should impose stiffer penalties on those who intend to commit felonies while carrying arms, particularly those who kill police officers? Would he welcome the reintroduction of hanging? Is he aware that Lord Tebbit has asked the Government—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is becoming a speech: interventions should be short.

Mr. Evans: I understand the thrust of my hon. Friend's questions. I asked Sergeant Kirk of Clitheroe and Superintendent Clarke of Fulwood about arming the police. They both felt that that was wrong and they did not want the police to be armed. The last time a police officer was shot, I wrote to Lancashire police to ask it what sort of body armour its officers wanted and whether it was happy that it had received enough resources to buy it. Officers told me that they are looking carefully at the


body armour that will be made available to them. The current body armour is fine if worn for a short time, but in the summer the police would be unable to wear it all day. I would support the provision of flexible body armour to the police as soon as possible to give them protection, because, after all, they are protecting us.
Superintendent Clarke also told me how much she welcomes the new initiative on DNA sampling. It will be a great boon for the police to be able to build up a database of known criminals, because when evidence is left at the scene of crime it will point to those who perpetrated it. Those who argue about liberty have said that such sampling is a dreadful invasion of privacy. Not at all. I support it if it means that serious criminals will be caught. Superintendent Clarke wanted to know why that sampling could not be introduced retrospectively so that samples could be taken from those already in prison—known criminals. That is a good idea.
I could not make a speech about law and order in Ribble Valley without offering my thanks to all those involved in neighbourhood watch, who do a superb job not only in my area but throughout the country. They have given a commitment and they take the time and trouble to go around their communities to ensure that they are that much safer. They give a lot of support to the police and work side by side with them. I have been told of one initiative that was taken in Ribchester, which suffers from a lot of car crime. Those in the local neighbourhood watch, working with the police, sent out leaflets suggesting the measures that people could take to make their cars safer. People responded and the amount of car crime committed in Ribchester has dropped. That is a perfect working example of where the police and neighbourhood watch are working hand in hand. Such crime prevention will also help people to cut the amount of car insurance they have to pay in the long term.
I also applaud the work of the specials, a dedicated group of people who supplement the work of the police. They give up a lot of their time to ensure that law and order is kept in Ribble Valley. They are also supported by some local firms, for instance, British Aerospace, which has given the specials the use of a car in order to liaise with neighbourhood watch. It is a perfect example of a firm in the community supporting that community with something more than just words—a financial commitment. One of my local garages, Syd Brown, is also supporting the specials by providing a car. I applaud both those organisations and other commercial organisations that are backing the specials and neighbourhood watch with money.
I also welcome the fact that the police are going into schools under community action programmes. Superintendent Clarke told me that a dedicated officer goes around the schools talking to the youngsters. They organise poster competitions and quizzes in primary schools, trying to make the youngsters suggest ways of cutting crime and protecting themselves from criminals. It is important to start such education early, and I recommend the tactic to other police areas that are not already using it.
Clitheroe station has recently been refurbished, and new cells have been provided. That is welcome in a small community such as ours, because it means that police time is no longer wasted. Formerly two police officers had to

accompany a prisoner to another area; now the prisoner can be put into a cell immediately, and those policemen can walk the beat. A number of respondents to my "viewfinder" said that they wanted more policemen walking the beat.
The old Clitheroe court was above the police station for a long time, but, unfortunately, it closed last year because of efficiency savings. It has now moved to Blackburn. That means that the police must now go to Blackburn, which takes up a good deal of time. Rural community courts should be kept open, even for only one day a week: the administration can be carried out anywhere, but police time should not be wasted.
I am also concerned about drug and solvent abuse. Will my hon. Friend the Minister make a fresh commitment to the Government's determination not to knuckle under and give in to calls from some of the "softheads"—as I call them—for the decriminalising of soft drugs? That is the last thing that we want, because it would make drugs cheaper and more easily available. No benefits would result. We must crack down on people who take drugs, and in particular those who push them—especially those who sell them to youngsters.
Earlier in the year, I was saddened to read that two youngsters aged 15 had been caught taking soft drugs in a school in my constituency. I shall not name the school, because I know that the headmistress is working hard to tackle such problems; it is a great shame that the governors did not support her in this instance. The youngsters were given a second chance, but were subsequently caught again. The headmistress expelled them. The governing body, however, overturned her decision and gave them a third chance. That gave the wrong message to youngsters who go to the school in question, who now have the impression that the school is not all that fussed about drugs. But we are fussed about young people who become involved with drugs. Only one message should be given to them: they will wreck their lives. We will not cave in to calls for the decriminalisation of drugs.
We must take a further step, however. We must ensure that school children are educated about the damage done by drug and solvent abuse. I am involved with a charity called Life Education; it has a number of small units which visit schools throughout the country, supported by community action groups such as Rotary. They talk to youngsters, in language that they understand, about substances that are harmful if they put them into their bodies.
The other day I visited one of the units in London. It was superb to see youngsters responding to the message conveyed by Life Education members. There should be such units throughout the country, educating children as young as four and five: at that age they can be influenced. The same applies to solvent abuse. Last week a 15-year-old died in Preston as a result of such abuse; what a criminal waste of a young life. I agree with the Lancashire Evening Post that we should consider measures to restrict the sale of solvents to young people.
I own a retail store, where my sister imposes her own rule that purchasers of butane gas must be over 21. We must look afresh at ways of restricting access to solvents that can kill young people. I support the newspaper's campaign, and I have sent some relevant papers to my


right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that he will seriously consider new ways of tackling the problem.
We must also ensure that the sentence fits the crime. A shop owner in Clitheroe wrote to me saying that two of her windows had been broken. That had cost her £1,000: the excess on her insurance cost her £250, and the insurance company forced her to install shutters, which cost £600. About £300-worth of goods were stolen. She got most of them back, but some were unsaleable.
So what happened to the person responsible? He was fined £53.40 and given a conditional discharge. I do not want sentencing of that kind in Ribble Valley, and I have already written to the Blackburn courts asking what went wrong. We should be getting tough with such people. Mrs. Carter, who came to my surgery, despairs of the situation. I hope that we will act to ensure that magistrates impose sentences appropriate to the crimes involved, so that others are deterred; but that can be done only through stiffer penalties, which were supported by Ribble Valley "viewfinder".
I have made my views public in my constituency: my constituents know that I am fairly hard on sentencing. I want stiffer sentences, and I think that parents should pay more attention to where their youngsters are. I believe that the use of the cane should be reintroduced in schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) mentioned the death penalty earlier, last year I voted twice for its reintroduction in cases in which it is appropriate. I support the introduction of boot camps for young thugs, which has been proved to reduce the incidence of reoffending by 50 per cent. in the United States.
I was delighted when we acted to stop sentences for young thugs that involved cruises to Egypt or safari trips to Africa. The victims of their crimes must have wondered what the heck was going on; their taxes were paying for those junkets.
Since becoming Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley, I have been—on visits, I hasten to add—to Strangeways, Lancaster Farms and Fulwood prisons, and I support the work that is going on in those three institutions. Someone said to me the other day, "We are condemned for having more prisoners per head of population than any other European country, but when they are in prison we know that they are not on the streets committing crimes."

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be glass shutters separating inmates from visitors, and more barbed wire and fewer video games and golf courses in prisons?

Mr. Evans: Indeed. The prison regime should be austere. It has been proved that contact between prisoners and their families or girl friends has enabled them to acquire drugs, and I believe that we should act swiftly to ensure that that never happens again.
I know that the county council structure plan is not in the domain of my hon. Friend the Minister, but it is relevant. I have described the rural nature of much of my constituency: it contains small villages, where there is a community life style. There is a community policeman, and people look after each other. The county council is considering the introduction of new houses on a scale that is not appropriate to Ribble Valley in Whittingham, the site of an old mental institution—it is thinking of putting

1,000 houses into an area that currently contains only 500—and in Whalley Calderstones, where it plans to put at least 1,000 houses. That would fundamentally alter the character of the villages, and would make it much more difficult for them to maintain their good record on law and order.
I back calls that are made when new houses are being built for crime prevention to be taken into account in the design of houses and estates. That, too, helps the police. I praise the work of others who help them—members of neighbourhood watch schemes, special constables and businesses that take the time and trouble, and contribute the money, to assist.
Crime is a war and there can be no conscientious objectors in that battle. In the Ribble Valley the people and the police work as one. Obviously, that does not mean that there is no crime; it means that we will not succumb to crime. We will fight crime wherever it exists and we will support the police when they are defending us. We will defeat the scourge of our society: the criminals who despoil our quality of life.
The Government have the support of the people of the Ribble Valley in the measures that they are taking to tackle the problem. The people of the Ribble Valley will continue to make suggestions to Government and to prod and to push for stiffer action in order to combat the criminals. Middle England has had enough; now is the time to hit back.

7 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on an excellent and informative speech, in which he drew the House's attention to the problems facing his constituency in the war against crime and to the achievements of the police, the community and the neighbourhood watch scheme in reducing crime. Having listened to my hon. Friend's comments on sentencing, I wish only that he was a senior judge.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of death at the Tickled Trout. I have eaten some of its excellent food on a few occasions and I understand that death through over-indulgence at the Tickled Trout is a very real prospect. I am rather disappointed that, although the closed circuit television scheme, which I was very pleased to fund, opens next month, I cannot find my invitation to perform the opening ceremony and enjoy lunch at the Tickled Trout.
My hon. Friend made a number of interesting points that he believes could help us win the war against crime in the future, not only in Ribble Valley but in the country as a whole. Before dealing with the specific points made by my hon. Friend, I re-emphasise the fact that crime is falling in Ribble Valley. I share my hon. Friend's view that we cannot be complacent about that; we cannot say that we have won the battle and that it is time to go home, because even one crime is a crime too many. Even if we lowered the crime rate, it would still be far too high.
None the less, in the past two years we have had considerable success in cutting crime in this country and I believe that we can regard Ribble Valley as a success story. It is a success that I very much hope will continue; I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in a future debate that there has been a further and welcome fall in the crime rate in his constituency.
I am well acquainted with the attractions of my hon. Friend's constituency. Reaching Ribble Valley from Penrith is just a matter of going down the M6 and turning left—and I do not often turn left. I shall try to help hon. Members who are not familiar with it to picture the area. Ribble Valley is delightful. It is largely a rural area and 70 per cent. of the Ribble Valley has been designated as being of outstanding natural beauty.
It has undulating countryside, hills, valleys, gushing streams, lots of sheep, excellent pubs with good beer, and—of prime importance—an outstanding Member of Parliament. With all that, it has a population of just over 50,000—although it increases in the summer months as, not surprisingly, a growing tourist trade is attracted there by good motorway communications. But there is a down side: the motorway network also brings criminals from outside the area. I do not think that my hon. Friend will disagree when I say that the Ribble Valley has some home-grown criminals as well.
As my hon. Friend has reminded us, the major centre in Ribble Valley is Clitheroe, a bustling market town which has certainly shown itself to be wide awake when it comes to crime prevention. I am pleased to say that crime prevention throughout the Ribble Valley is paying off: figures for reported crime in the first four and a half months of the year show a substantial reduction compared with 1994.
Burglary is one of the crimes about which most people worry. Our latest figures run from the beginning of the year to May, and they show that there were just 100 domestic burglaries during that period—a decrease of 70 on the same period last year. Vehicle crime in Ribble Valley has also shown a substantial reduction. During the same five-month period, it fell from 356 to 306 cases. Regrettably, there was a slight increase in violent crimes from 20 to 23 cases, although I am pleased to say that none of them was classified as serious. There were 14 additional cases of non-domestic burglary.
Even taking the increase in those two categories into account, overall there has been a 13 per cent. fall in crime figures in Ribble Valley so far this year, with a total of 818 crimes reported to the police. I am sure that all my hon. Friends will join me in hoping that the improvement will be maintained and in congratulating Lancashire constabulary on its excellent success.
The House should draw encouragement from the fact that the improvement in crime figures for the Ribble Valley is part of the wider improvement that we have experienced nationally. I remind the House that recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 5 per cent. in 1994. Taken with the 1 per cent. fall in 1993, it is the largest percentage fall over a two-year period for 40 years. Lancashire as a whole also had a 5 per cent. drop. That proves that, provided we work together, we can reduce crime. That is why measures to tackle crime remain at the top of the Government's agenda.
Our strategy for dealing with crime is clear and is based on four main strands. First, we must do all that we can to prevent crime. Secondly, we must do all that we can to help the police to catch criminals. Thirdly, we must ensure that when suspects have been caught they are tried fairly and speedily. Fourthly, we must ensure that, if criminals are convicted, the courts have the powers that they need to deal with them appropriately and effectively.
The Government believe that crime prevention should involve everyone in the community: it is not something that can be left to the police or to other specialists. This is why the Government have promoted the partnership approach to crime prevention, encouraging local communities—including local authorities, business and the voluntary sector—to work alongside the police to try to reduce crime.
In response to guidance, support and encouragement from the Government, many successful local crime prevention partnerships have been formed. I am pleased to say that that is precisely what is happening in Lancashire as a whole and in the Ribble Valley. The Lancashire Partnership Against Crime was formed in 1992 as the major crime prevention initiative within the county, with the objective of bringing together commercial companies and local authorities to increase participation in crime reduction work.
The partnership is managed by a board that is made up of representatives from member organisations and it has been involved in a variety of initiatives, including steps to improve hospital security, anti-burglary measures and running community safety patrols. It has also helped to produce security advice for licensees.
A total of 28 police officers work full time on crime prevention in Lancashire and two senior crime prevention panels organise a number of local campaigns. Lancashire constabulary employs a full-time co-ordinator to run the partnership from police headquarters. I have met the co-ordinator and he is a superb operator.
The county also has an initiative to involve young people in community safety. School community action teams, known as SCATs, are proving successful. There are 53 SCATs in the county and I will briefly outline projects that they have undertaken in Ribble Valley. It is by no means a comprehensive list. West Craven high school has adopted and painted a vandalised bus shelter. The school has also had a property marking scheme which encourages people to put their postcodes on their property. At Clitheroe high school five students have undertaken a survey of drug use and abuse, which I am told was "excellent." The police have also asked children in a local school for those with learning difficulties—although I believe that it is outside my hon. Friend's constituency—to help with the clerical tasks involved in one of their crime prevention campaigns.
Other schools in the area, including Ribblesdale high school, have been involved in promoting the vehicle watch scheme and the 25 scheme. I remind the House that the vehicle watch scheme encourages motorists who do not expect to use their cars between midnight and 5 am to put special stickers on the front and rear windows of their vehicles. If the police notice a vehicle with a sticker on the road at that time, they are authorised to stop the vehicle and to question the driver.
The 25 scheme is similar. It involves putting a sticker in the window of a vehicle when a driver under the age of 25 is not normally expected to use that car. I think that the schools should be commended for taking part in that project—although I would not recommend it to my youthful-looking hon. Friend, who would be stopped all the time because the police are bound to think that he is under 25.
An important part of the partnership approach to fighting crime is the use of special constables, and my hon. Friend was correct to mention them. I understand


that in Ribble Valley both they and traffic wardens are playing an important role in preventing vehicle crime. While on patrol, special constables and traffic wardens who notice that a car has been left insecure or with valuables visible note the car's details so that the owner can be sent a letter giving him or her details of how to improve vehicle security measures.
The Government have set a target of increasing special constables from 20,000 to 30,000. We consider them an excellent supplement to the regular police force. They are not a replacement, and there is no question of reducing the regular police force if we recruit specials, but it is good for people to volunteer. Next to joining the volunteer reserve forces, serving as a volunteer constable is the highest level of volunteering that any British citizen can do. They are a great body of men and women. I pay the highest tribute to special constables up and down the country.
My hon. Friend said that technology is also being used to fight crime in Clitheroe. The CCTV system, consisting of 13 cameras, is currently being installed in Clitheroe, and that was funded partly through the Home Office CCTV competition that I instituted. I understand that the local police are optimistic that the scheme will deter crime in the town centre and help them to apprehend suspects. They should be optimistic as in every other place where I have seen CCTV schemes in operation—in big cities and smaller towns—it clearly deters criminals, catches criminals and, by God, it helps to convict them. Newcastle police tell me that of 350 people—of course, the figure goes up every week—who they had arrested in the city centre because they had caught them on video, 347 pleaded guilty and had not a leg to stand on. Not only is justice being done, but it saves the courts some considerable time and effort and, no doubt, helps the legal aid fund as well.
There are also plans to provide local shops most likely to experience shoplifting with two-way radios. I have seen similar systems in operation and they are excellent. It will enable shopkeepers to alert the police, each other and the monitoring station if they notice suspicious behaviour.
My hon. Friend suggested that the scheme should be introduced in Longridge. I understand that that is under local consideration, but the Government have always maintained that CCTV should be targeted where it is most needed. It is a long-term commitment involving the local authority, local enterprise and the police.
Clitheroe was successful in gaining funding through the CCTV challenge. The criteria for bids were set out in guidance issued to all local authorities and police forces last November. Under the terms of the challenge, bids are to be matched by local funding, including private sector funding where appropriate. The quality of the bids was very high. No one factor was decisive in the final choice and there were 106 winners all told, including 13 from the north-west. There is nothing to stop Longridge going ahead with a CCTV scheme, but my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot promise any additional funding at present or say whether we will instigate similar challenge schemes.
My hon. Friend mentioned funding in Lancashire. I am sure that hon. Members agree that the realistic expectation of being caught is one of the best deterrents against crime. An additional £9.82 million has been made available to Lancashire for policing purposes this year—an increase of 6.7 per cent. which compares very favourably with the

national increase, and even that was way above the level of inflation. Not every other Government Department or local council services department can say that its funding has been a generous as we made police funding this year because we recognise the importance of law and order. It is a good settlement for the police at a time of constraint on public expenditure.
My hon. Friend mentioned the helicopter. I am a great enthusiast for police helicopters, and I encourage him to boast about it publicly. Other police forces must not be shy about telling people that they have a helicopter. It is not an expensive waste of money or an expensive toy; it is an essential policing tool to apprehend today's highly mobile criminals. I have seen the figures, I read the statistics and I have seen police helicopters in operation.
No armed robber escapes from a police helicopter. Once the equipment on a police helicopter locks on to a car, no vehicle can outpace it. I know that one or two Porsches might go faster, but a helicopter can cut the corners.
Not only are helicopters good at catching criminals, but they reduce the chance of high-speed chases. They lower the accident rate and have other features, such as thermal imaging, so that on dark nights they can find people who have wandered off or had accidents. They act as mobile command platforms if there is a major incident or accident. They are wonderful pieces of kit. The Government are keen to fund as many as possible. We have expanded the number over the past few years and I advise police forces not to be embarrassed if they have a helicopter; it is a vital policing tool these days.
My hon. Friend also mentioned secure design or improving design. I spent most of today in Staffordshire opening the county's first industrial park, which has been awarded a "secured by design" certificate. "Secured by design" is a wonderful concept that I would encourage every architect and builder to follow. It is no more expensive to build a house securely with proper locks or to build an entire housing estate with a sensible, decent design instead of the ghastly structures that people build, which no doubt win design awards but have rabbit runs or rat runs everywhere, front doors backing on to back doors and cars scattered all over the place.
Some of those designs encourage crime, as we saw from the ghastly 1960s and 1970s housing with archways and pedestrian walkways that are now—at great cost—being demolished, redesigned and returned to a sensible structure. I pay tribute to those who dreamt up the secured by design project and I intend to host a conference later this year of police architectural liaison officers and more architects and designers to encourage them when they are designing housing estates or ordinary buildings, factories and office blocks to think about security at the design stage, as it is cheaper in the long run.
My hon. Friend mentioned DNA sampling. The Government have been responsible for a number of other measures that are designed to enable the police to do their job more effectively. I am keen on using all forms of technology. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced the possibility of DNA sampling. The world's first national DNA database is now up and running, and once again little old Britain got there first. In so many cases, whether it is automated fingerprint computer recognition systems, where the Americans may have the computer, but we invented the data which make it work, or DNA sampling, the British police service is in


the lead the world over. Our database has now come on stream and will result in many people being caught and convicted and people regard it as the greatest policing breakthrough since fingerprints. It is the greatest tool that the police can have.
My hon. Friend mentioned the risks that serving police officers take in their operations against crime. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I share his concern. It is terribly important for officers to have suitable protection against those dangers.
One of the first jobs that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did when he came to the Home Office two years and three days ago was to authorise proper scientific assessment of the side-handled baton. Street trials of the expandable version were encouraging, and in June 1994 it was formally approved by the Home Secretary. In November, the Home Secretary, as the police authority for the Metropolitan police, agreed to the issue of straight batons up to 26 in long, and he has given his support to the side-handled baton following a proper programme of evaluation to ensure that it meets officers' needs. At the same time, he gave his support to other chief constables who wished to introduce similar batons.
Since last year, most police forces have replaced the little, short traditional truncheon. I understand that Lancashire has had a programme running for the past four or five months to train officers in the use of side-handled batons and that has been widely welcomed in the force. The new batons can make a big difference to an officer's ability to carry out his duties, both in terms of the protection they offer and the greater confidence that results from it.
We welcome the side-handled batons and the extendable ones. We are receiving information now and we shall collate it. Much of it is anecdotal as the batons have been issued only recently, but we understand that injuries to officers in situations where they would normally have anticipated injuries have declined, that more prisoners are coming quietly and that some minor riots and disturbances have been avoided because the officer appears with a worthwhile baton rather than the tickling stick that the police had for 100 years.
My hon. Friend mentioned body armour. Of course, we are concerned scientifically to evaluate the best possible armour, but despite some of the claims in certain magazines I must tell my hon. Friend that no one has yet invented a body armour that protects against both bullets and stab wounds. There are some good vests which are bullet resistant; there are others which are stab resistant. So far, putting the two together has not resulted in anything that a bobby could wear for more than half an hour at a time. We shall continue to evaluate all kit so that chief constables will be able to know which body armour works and what its limitations are. They can then ensure that their officers are as well protected as possible.
Sentencing is important too. Effective action against crime does not stop with apprehending the suspect. We have ensured that the courts have all the powers they need to deal appropriately with offenders who come before them. My hon. Friends have supported us in the Division Lobby time after time on this issue. Parliament has taken its responsibility seriously to ensure that the powers are available to the courts—if only they would use them.
Severe sentences are available for serious crimes. I shall be careful about what I say when discussing the Executive and the judiciary, but it has been noticeable—judging by the public and the press outcry—that most of our constituents think not that Parliament has failed in its duty to provide adequate sentences but that lenient sentences are handed out. That dismays people; and if the House had not introduced powers to refer over-lenient sentences to the Attorney-General, they would be even more dismayed.
The clear message to those responsible for sentencing is that they must not disappoint the people of this country, who will get very indignant if they feel that sentences are inadequate.
My hon. Friend also mentioned capital punishment. He knows that I am an awful wet on that issue. My wife is much more robust, and starts with hanging for those who have double parked. I would begin with more serious offences—and with those who have been found guilty. My hon. Friend knows that the subject has been debated in the House, and that I share his view that we should have the ultimate deterrent.
My hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to another side of youth culture in his constituency. Unfortunately it appears that there is a problem with solvent abuse in some schools, and my hon. Friend has called for a change in the law. Under existing law, the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 makes it an offence for a person to sell a substance such as glue to a person under 18 if he knows that the substance or its fumes are likely to be inhaled for the purpose of causing intoxication. It was interesting to learn that my hon. Friend's sister sets the limit at the higher age of 21. The primary purpose of the law is to counter the activities of unscrupulous retailers. Enforcement is a matter for the police. By 1993 there had been 70 prosecutions under the Act, 45 of which resulted in findings of guilt.
On this and many other technical matters to do with drugs, the Government are advised by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which recently published a report on volatile substance abuse. The report makes no recommendations for changing the law, but I am happy to look at all the information from the campaign on solvent abuse which my hon. Friend is leading. I will happily study it and bring it to the attention of my colleagues who are responsible for drugs in the Home Office.
The one firm assurance that I can give my hon. Friend—and will always give the House as long as I am a Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend is Home Secretary—is that we shall never legalise any drugs that are currently banned. I know that there are sophisticated trendies who say that they can smoke a bit of pot after dinner parties in Hampstead—they can handle it. No doubt they can. Many people can handle a few glasses of port after dinner, but millions cannot. It is no good telling our kids that some drugs are really bad for them, some are in the middle and some are all right. That is a confusing message. Our message is simple: all drugs are harmful. It is nonsense to say that cannabis is not harmful. It may not be as bad as cocaine, but it is still harmful.
Many kids at the moment are able to resist drugs because they can say that they are illegal—they do not want to do something illegal. That can provide their


excuse when they are refusing drugs offered by other kids. We shall never undermine those kids by removing the legal sanction. I remind the House that not a single chief constable among the 43 police forces of England and Wales for which I am responsible thinks that we should legalise drugs.
My hon. Friend went on to mention ID cards, suggesting that they could help to solve the problem of solvent abuse, and other crimes. We know that there is widespread public interest in the issue and that there is a wide range of views on what they would achieve and on how any scheme should operate. So much is clear from today's press articles. The Green Paper that we published yesterday will allow a full national debate before any final decision is taken. I agree with my hon. Friend that ID cards could help to prevent the illegal sale of age-restricted goods such as solvents, as well as helping to prevent crimes involving the use of a false identity, such as cheque and credit card fraud. But the Government do not believe that ID cards would be a general panacea for all crime—let us not kid ourselves about that.
That is why we need to consider the issue carefully and explore all its aspects. This is a genuine consultation exercise of the kind that we always intended to hold. The Government are setting out the options—naturally, that has been presented as a U-turn. It is nothing of the sort. We want to listen to genuinely held views about the sort of identity card that we should have—if we should have one at all—and about the driving licence and social security options.
I look forward to the outcome of this important national debate and if necessary to taking action on it.
We shall continue to do all that we can to reduce crime and to protect the public. That is one of the first duties of any Government. But the responsibility for preventing crime does not rest solely with the Government, the police, local councils or any single organisation. Respect for the law will be encouraged when everyone joins in—families and parents, schools, the Government, the local community, the business sector, people playing their part in neighbourhood watch schemes and in the special constabulary. If everyone plays his part we can get the crime figures down.
The message of the falling crime figures of the past two years is that it is no use running around wringing our hands and saying that it is all too difficult—where should be start? Nothing will get done that way. But if we tackle burglary and the police mount operations such as Operation Bumblebee, Operation Claw, the Bear Bites Back operation in Warwickshire, Operation Spider and Operation Gemini, involving the community and businesses in genuine partnerships against crime such as the one in Lancashire, we can bring down crime sector by sector. That has to be the right approach.
The community in Ribble Valley are playing an excellent part, and I would ask my hon. Friend to pass on my hope to his constituents that they will keep up the good work and keep supporting their police force, who do an excellent job. I trust that they will continue to shoulder part of the burden, as all good citizens should. What we can do in Lancashire we can do in other parts of the country as well—although my hon. Friend might disagree with me about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.